Impeachment Hearings

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, Carrock said:

 

It's not unusual for an individual who has not committed a crime to be found guilty in a fair trial.

Many people have been eventually exonerated due to improvements in forensics etc but they'd likely have preferred never to be tried and just be left under suspicion.

Not guilty is a verdict rather than a statement of innocence. e.g. he probably did it but the evidence wasn't sufficiently convincing.

(BTW not defending Trump.)

Wouldn't you say it's unusual for a person to suppress evidence if that evidence exonerated them?  

[John Cuthber]

Avoiding any trial is, of course, a way to ensure that you avoid conviction, but that ship sailed.
He's getting a trial (of sorts).

It seems reasonable to me that his team want to avoid the facts being heard, because they show that he's guilty.

In effect, their actions show that they know he did the wrong thing.

Otherwise, they would want a chance for the evidence to prove he's innocent.

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by John Cuthber

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

So tell me what you mean by this as you seem to be implying that Nadler and Schiff are behaving poorly in the matter while the behavior of the Republican Senators has been above reproach.

Do you believe that Nadler and Schiff are basing their comments on nothing whatsoever? Have the Senators left any doubt about their intentions regarding the impeachment?

Are you under the impression that no one on 'Team Trump' has had anything negative to say regarding the jury prior to the final verdict?

Nadler accusing jury members of taking part in a cover up. Schiff saying they've been threatened with "head on a pike".

They did this while presenting the impeachment case during the trial.

 

I said nothing about Republican Senators being "beyond reproach".

[Carrock]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Wouldn't you say it's unusual for a person to suppress evidence if that evidence exonerated them?  

 

Exoneration requires a much higher standard (I think) than does 'insufficient evidence to prove guilt.' At best, if the defence claims are mostly true, the suppressed evidence would likely fail to exonerate Trump but simply add no more evidence of guilt.

Certainly, it would be usual and good for Trump to facilitate this evidence if it doesn't harm his case.

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Avoiding any trial is, of course, a way to ensure that you avoid conviction, but that ship sailed.
He's getting a trial (of sorts).

It seems reasonable to me that his team want to avoid the facts being heard, because they show that he's guilty.

In effect, their actions show that they know he did the wrong thing.

 

Acquittal is all Trump can really go for. Doesn't matter so much if everyone is sure the trial was fixed.

 

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Exoneration requires a much higher standard (I think) than does 'insufficient evidence to prove guilt.' At best, if the defence claims are mostly true, the suppressed evidence would likely fail to exonerate Trump but simply add no more evidence of guilt.

That's not what I asked, though. I wasn't proposing that the court find them innocent. The danger is that they will be found guilty, and the defendant should be motivated to not want that verdict. 

Previously you said that innocent people are sometimes found guilty. OK, the premise then is a person who is innocent. Why would they not present evidence of their innocence?

If the defense claims are true, though, then he isn't innocent. So that's a different premise, and a motivation to not have witnesses testify, and not release documents.

 

13 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Certainly, it would be usual and good for Trump to facilitate this evidence if it doesn't harm his case.

If he's innocent, how can it harm his case?

[John Cuthber]

39 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Acquittal is all Trump can really go for. Doesn't matter so much if everyone is sure the trial was fixed.

I'd like to think it matters here on this site where, as scientists, we understand evidence.

Edited January 28, 2020 by John Cuthber

[J.C.MacSwell]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

If he's innocent, how can it harm his case?

By making him look guilty, or seemingly tend to, even if he isn't. 

There is a lot of grey area between Trump fully believing Biden corrupt while totally innocent of the fact that an investigation could help him personally....and wanting the Bidens to be investigated solely for his personal gain or even asking that something be made up (which is what Schiff suggested in his "parody" of the phone call)

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

By making him look guilty, or seemingly tend to, even if he isn't. 

There is a lot of grey area between Trump fully believing Biden corrupt while totally innocent of the fact that an investigation could help him personally....and wanting the Bidens to be investigated solely for his personal gain or even asking that something be made up (which is what Schiff suggested in his "parody" of the phone call)

Grey area? No, not so much. It's not like we don't have other evidence, presented to the house, or statements made outside of the impeachment hearings. 

Plus I don't think what Trump believes enters into it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and all that. The question is one of facts: did Trump ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens? If yes, he's guilty of abuse of power. Did he withhold evidence congress asked for? Yes. This should not even be in question.

[Carrock]

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's not what I asked, though. I wasn't proposing that the court find them innocent. The danger is that they will be found guilty, and the defendant should be motivated to not want that verdict. 

Previously you said that innocent people are sometimes found guilty. OK, the premise then is a person who is innocent. Why would they not present evidence of their innocence?

An extreme example:

I didn't kill that child in a hit and run. There's evidence the police overlooked which will prove I was robbing a bank at the time.

Almost(?) everyone has something, lawful or not, that they don't want generally known and might withhold even if it would be evidence of their innocence of the crime they're charged with. Trump in particular must be concerned about other offences coming to light if witnesses are cross examined under oath.

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

If the defense claims are true, though, then he isn't innocent.

They seem to be claiming he is innocent however dubious their reasoning. So he is not guilty until and unless found guilty.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

The question is one of facts...

It should be, but for some senators who decided their verdicts before the trial, facts are irrelevant.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Grey area? No, not so much. It's not like we don't have other evidence, presented to the house, or statements made outside of the impeachment hearings. 

Plus I don't think what Trump believes enters into it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and all that. The question is one of facts: did Trump ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens? If yes, he's guilty of abuse of power. Did he withhold evidence congress asked for? Yes. This should not even be in question.

I don't agree.

Trump has admitted to that in any case. 

Have the Democrats abused power asking for Trump to be investigated? 

[John Cuthber]

Asking for due process is not an abuse of power.

It's also not a thing to do lightly- because, if you do it and the guy gets cleared, you risk looking foolish.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

By making him look guilty, or seemingly tend to, even if he isn't.

 

Is this a canadian thing? 

 

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Have the Democrats abused power asking for Trump to be investigated? 

No

27 minutes ago, Carrock said:

An extreme example:

I didn't kill that child in a hit and run. There's evidence the police overlooked which will prove I was robbing a bank at the time.

Almost(?) everyone has something, lawful or not, that they don't want generally known and might withhold even if it would be evidence of their innocence of the crime they're charged with. Trump in particular must be concerned about other offences coming to light if witnesses are cross examined under oath.

Quote

Trump has admitted to that in any case.

 his innocence is therefore undeniable.

Edited January 28, 2020 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is this a canadian thing? 

 

No

 his innocence is therefore undeniable.

Yep. No grey area whatsoever. If he didn't ask for something to be confabulated...he must be truly as innocent as he was the day he was born.

[CharonY]

12 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m more optimistic now than before, but won’t believe it until I see it.

Also, anyone in the GOP who votes for witnesses will get unloaded on by Trump. He’ll sick his mindless hounds... erm, bots on anyone who doesn’t show 100% fealty and loyalty.  He’ll put their heads on Twitter spikes for all to see and will keep doing so until they get primary’d. 

I think they may vote for witnesses once they are certain enough that the narrative has sufficiently changed. As can be seen, it went from "Trump did no  such thing" and there was no "quid pro quo" to it is entirely normal presidential behaviour and he is just a victim of Democrat overreach. Once the latter is repeated sufficiently, it simply become irrelevant what he did. And once that is established, it does not matter what of witnesses are being called.

You recall Trump's claim that he could shoot someone on 5th avenue  and not lose voters? We are there right now. In other words, they have successfully demonstrated that accountability is apparently just an illusion.

[dimreepr]

These arguments seem more applicable to clinton.

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yep. No grey area whatsoever. If he didn't ask for something to be confabulated...he must be truly as innocent as he was the day he was born.

These arguments seem more applicable to clinton.

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 Have the Democrats abused power asking for Trump to be investigated? 

No, the power of impeachment is enumerated in the constitution.  

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nadler accusing jury members of taking part in a cover up. Schiff saying they've been threatened with "head on a pike".

They did this while presenting the impeachment case during the trial.

 

I said nothing about Republican Senators being "beyond reproach".

You said:

Quote

and then Nadler and Schiff won't be the only ones prejudging and insulting the jury prior to final verdict.

Okay, so the Republican Senators may not be "beyond reproach" but according to you they are not "prejudging and insulting", which pretty much makes them boy scouts. We must be watching different news sources as I've seen the insults and prejudgements flying from all directions.

[iNow]

35 minutes ago, CharonY said:

it went from "Trump did no  such thing" and there was no "quid pro quo" to it is entirely normal presidential behaviour and he is just a victim of Democrat overreach. Once the latter is repeated sufficiently, it simply become irrelevant what he did. And once that is established, it does not matter what of witnesses are being called.

They've put on a masterclass in goal post moving

[J.C.MacSwell]

48 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You said:

Okay, so the Republican Senators may not be "beyond reproach" but according to you they are not "prejudging and insulting", which pretty much makes them boy scouts. We must be watching different news sources as I've seen the insults and prejudgements flying from all directions.

Maybe you can give a couple of examples of GOP Senators insulting the jury (Senate). Then we can compare them to those of Schiff and Nadler.

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe you can give a couple of examples of GOP Senators insulting the jury (Senate).

This request seems odd to me. No GOP Senators have been able to speak. Appears as if you're asking for an impossible to satisfy bit of evidence. "Tell me exactly when those people who are not permitted to speak insulted anyone, I dare ye!!" Lol.

Would you perhaps instead accept comments from the quote unquote defendant, or perhaps his legal team who continues to scorn House managers and lie about what they're saying/presenting/have done? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

This request seems odd to me. No GOP Senators have been able to speak. Appears as if you're asking for an impossible to satisfy bit of evidence. "Tell me exactly when those people who are not permitted to speak insulted anyone, I dare ye!!" Lol.

Would you perhaps instead accept comments from the quote unquote defendant, or perhaps his legal team who continues to scorn House managers and lie about what they're saying/presenting/have done? 

...but I'm sure Zap has something in mind

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

You said:

Okay, so the Republican Senators may not be "beyond reproach" but according to you they are not "prejudging and insulting", which pretty much makes them boy scouts. We must be watching different news sources as I've seen the insults and prejudgements flying from all directions.

Of course he could simply be missing that I clearly did not make that claim, but was refferring to Nadler and Schiff prejudging and insulting, specifically, the jury.

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

No doubt...and then Nadler and Schiff won't be the only ones prejudging and insulting the jury prior to final verdict. (not saying Trump hasn't already started)

 

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I was refferring <sic> to Nadler and Schiff prejudging and insulting, specifically, the jury.

This seems like SUCH a stretch to me... manufactured outrage, really.

Schiff was referencing a CBS News report... Here's what he said:

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-schiffs-head-pike-comment-draws-outrage-gop/story?id=68527054

Quote

"CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned, 'Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike,'" Schiff said. "Now, I don't know if that's true."

He equated his "head on a pike' comment to how kings treated those considered traitors to their country.

Schiff said he was struck by the irony, adding "We're talking about a president who would make himself a monarch."

And you're calling this prejudging and insulting, acting like he called their mother fat and their child ugly...

The mind just boggles how perceptions can be so deeply skewed based on the media we consume (please note, I've watched all hearings directly... relying solely on primary sources... the actual events... and am not myself relying on interpretations or summaries from news sources).

Edited January 28, 2020 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Would you perhaps instead accept comments from the quote unquote defendant, or perhaps his legal team who continues to scorn House managers and lie about what they're saying/presenting/have done? 

Clearly wouldn't fit the bill...

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

This seems like SUCH a stretch to me... manufactured outrage, really.

Schiff was referencing a CBS News report... Here's what he said:

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-schiffs-head-pike-comment-draws-outrage-gop/story?id=68527054

And you're calling this prejudging and insulting, acting like he called their mother fat and their child ugly...

The mind just boggles how perceptions can be so deeply skewed based on the media we consume (please note, I've watched all hearings directly... relying solely on primary sources... the actual events... and am not myself relying on interpretations or summaries from news sources).

Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowsky did: Two of the very few GOP Senators considered candidates to vote with the Dems.

And yes, I would agree with them.

Your country's better off with more Collins' and Murkowsky's...and less Nadler's and Schiff's.

But go ahead and think Nadler and Schiff are taking the high road...simply because they are Democrats.

. 

Edited January 28, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe you can give a couple of examples of GOP Senators insulting the jury (Senate). Then we can compare them to those of Schiff and Nadler.

Will quotes from Trump or Giuliani do? "The reason you don’t know about it is because of the cover up by the corrupt Democrats and their establishment media!"

Trump has been insulting Senate Democrats for years. Giuliani the same.

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

15 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No doubt...and then Nadler and Schiff won't be the only ones prejudging and insulting the jury prior to final verdict. (not saying Trump hasn't already started)

 

Doesn't this mean that currently the ARE the only ones?

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Will quotes from Trump or Giuliani do? "The reason you don’t know about it is because of the cover up by the corrupt Democrats and their establishment media!"

That’s pretty weak. Trump’s called “Shifty” Schiff a “very sick man” and “corrupt politician” who “has not paid the price... yet.”

Or maybe those aren’t insults, just threats?

I’m confused why one side gets held so consistently to a different standard than the other. Maybe Goebbels had the right idea here... something about accusing others of what you yourself are doing?
 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

And yes, I would agree with them.

TBH, I’m genuinely confused by this particular outrage. 

Schiff: According to CBS, Trump says anyone who votes to allow witnesses will have their head on a proverbial spike. I’m unsure that’s true, but speaks to the broader theme here of Trump seeing himself like a monarch. 

GOP: How DARE you! You disgusting despicable monster. You have just offended me and besmirched my honor. I know these are often impolite times, but some lines you simply must never cross and you just did! Have you no decency, sir?

Me: Uhm, seriously.  Are you for real? Did I miss something?

Edited January 28, 2020 by iNow