Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In this country, jurors are permitted to consider the circumstantial evidence and use their common sense to draw conclusions about guilt or innocence based thereon. It’s a core function of their role. Jurors do it literally every day.
This isn’t a “c’mon everyone knows” situation. It’s a “look at the evidence and apply your common sense” one.
Logical fallacy.
You now equate your assertion to that of a juror being presented evidence that is "subject to cross examination". The "evidence" you cite as proof, has not been cross examined by the defense. At this point, it's nothing more than supposition.
Thus, this proof of what you claim fails, absolutely. This because you assume guilt by being unwilling to even consider the defense. AND that is also allowed in this country.
In this country, jurors are permitted to consider the circumstantial evidence and use their common sense to draw conclusions about guilt or innocence based thereon. It’s a core function of their role. Jurors do it literally every day.
This isn’t a “c’mon everyone knows” situation. It’s a “look at the evidence and apply your common sense” one.
You have no proof whatsoever of Trump's intent being anything other than what he says it is. Suggesting that it can be proven that his intent was different based on "common sense" is fairly ridiculous and might play in communist countries, but not in America.
You have no proof whatsoever of Trump's intent being anything other than what he says it is. Suggesting that it can be proven that his intent was different based on "common sense" is fairly ridiculous and might play in communist countries, but not in America.
The idea that intent cannot be proved except by what a defendant says it is is preposterous on its face. Take this nonsense somewhere else - no one is buying it here.
President Trump clearly violated the law that says "If a Federal law requires the United States to encourage foreign countries to investigate corruption within their own borders, the President must obey the law and promote such investigations. Unless a political rival is one of the corrupt people, in which case the President is forbidden to uphold that U.S. Federal law."
Shame on Trump for that.
This simply isn’t going to work our well for them, I hope they do vote to impeach. The economy next year is looking like it may pick up after a pretty good current year, the republicans are united finally, the senate acquittal along with an excellent labor market and more money in people’s pockets should position conservatives very well leading up to the election. Like the policies or not, Trump is getting it done.
The idea that intent cannot be proved except by what a defendant says it is is preposterous on its face. Take this nonsense somewhere else - no one is buying it here.
Intent cannot be proven based on "C'mon man, everyone knows why they did it" and right now, that's all you are rolling with. It's embarrassing.
The idea that intent cannot be proved except by what a defendant says it is is preposterous on its face. Take this nonsense somewhere else - no one is buying it here.
Dear it is you who first cite the court precedence & procedure, then promptly ignore it by insisting that Trump is absolutely guilty before ANY of the claims are even address in any court, trial, or cross examination.
Why would you do that? Why would you assume Guilt before Innocence. We don't do that in the USA. The only reason I can think is that it's political, nothing more. You aren't interested in the truth.
Intent cannot be proven based on "C'mon man, everyone knows why they did it" and right now, that's all you are rolling with. It's embarrassing.
Intent shows up a lot in the law and there is law that defines the elements of intent and what must be shown. I am sure Schiff has thought about this and I am sure Roberts will make sure the law is followed.
Intent shows up a lot in the law and there is law that defines the elements of intent and what must be shown. I am sure Schiff has thought about this and I am sure Roberts will make sure the law is followed.
Why would you think that? Because he's a Democrat and can do no wrong? GTFOH. lol
The GOP members of the House 100% of them, say Schiff's report is bogus.
Intent shows up a lot in the law and there is law that defines the elements of intent and what must be shown. I am sure Schiff has thought about this and I am sure Roberts will make sure the law is followed.
LOL people keep saying that as if Roberts has any real authority in the matter whatsoever. He merely follows the rules the Senate set. If the Senate doesn't like anything he does they can overrule him with a simple majority vote. His authority is only what the Senate allows.
That said, impeachment is a completely political thing, nothing really has to be proven to remove a president from office if the politicians are dishonest enough....and that's why we're even having an impeachment inquiry in the first place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
