|
|
I don’t think you know what hearsay is. And I don’t think you understand when it matters and why.Originally Posted by techman05
There is nothing inherently wrong with hearsay and it isn’t categorically excluded.
Same thing with “opinion” evidence, particularly when it comes from experts, such as the foreign policy professionals.
Opinions that were offered were explained by the rationale supporting the opinion. It is the totality of the context and the opinion that you weigh.
Well, IMO, the totality doesn’t weigh anything.
Also, there is a difference between a medical or psychiatric professional offering their opinion of a person’s sanity after an exam and interview and someone essentially stating that even though they heard a person say “blue”, their opinion is that the person said “red”.
Schiff is one of the best orators we have seen in a long time. What he has is no doubt a gift, but he has obviously put tens of thousands of hours into honing this craft. The hours he has spent preparing for this trial alone would probably surprise most people.
With such little to gain personally and such an insurmountable hurdle he faces at the prospect of trying to convince the other tribe to put the American interest above their tribal interest, that only makes his effort that much more commendable. Well done, sir. Thank you for fighting for the principles that make America great.
Well, this trial didn’t involve medical or testimony of what someone said about colors.
Are you saying you spent all day watching the proceedings the last few days? That seems to be what you are suggesting. Why don't you settle down a little and understand that most of us are probably watching the same clips and sections that we can catch and might just be coming away with a different conclusion. So far people seem to be seeing what they want to see as usual. We are heading for a party line acquittal to mirror the party line impeachment. Maybe they can get a Senator or two to peal away and vote for removal to mirror the vote to impeach. It wouldn't shock me, but right now it doesn't look likely.
The big question now is whether we hear from witnesses. I think there is a mix of people on both sides who want to drag this out and who want to get it over with. I think that is where we might see some bipartisan votes. What witnesses get called will be interesting.
Do you genuinely believe the bolded part or are you just trying to rile up the Trump guys? Honest question.
What channel are you seeing clips on?
Honestly, I do. From the perspective of having watched trial attorneys deliver evidence and elected officials give speeches, he has skills that match the very best of them. Did you see his closing remarks either of the last two nights? Or the closing statement at the impeachment hearings on any day? These are very hard skills to master - to be able to weave evidence into a narrative, to choose just the right words, to not overreach, to lend clarity in a fog, to speak precisely, simply, eloquently with full control of your pace and cadence, tone and emphasis. When you compare him to the other impeachment managers, it isn’t even close.
Even Lindsay Graham complemented him.
This is your craziest post ever. Schiff is nothing but a liar. Do you remember when he said he had proof that Donald Trump was a Russian agent? You have completely lost it. Do you remember how he made up what was in the transcript to make it seem like Trump had done something wrong?
Have you seen the video of him talking to the Russian comedians about getting naked pictures of Trump. This guy is a certified lunatic. You need to find a mental hospital and check yourself in.
But “us” and “country” has been altered to “me” and “my administration”.
I would agree that Schiff is a great orator. So are used car salesmen. So was Obama. So was Clinton. Most telemarketers are as well. Not good company if you ask me.
You forgot Hitler. Lefty lunatics LOVE references to Hitler. Well, Schiff is a regular Adolph with his oratory skills.
Doesn’t sound like you have actually watched the trial. We do know for a fact that the call record is not actually a full transcript, but even that fact is not particularly important. The evidence of the quid pro quo is from outside the call between Trump and Z. It is all the meetings that happened before and after the call.
The call demonstrates that Trump new about the deal and wanted Z to work with Rudy to work it. Whether or not Trump said us/country doesn’t even matter (and not sure why you would put so much stock in this particular piece of hearsay evidence). Based on the nature of the request, the channels that Trump used, and the totality of evidence, there is no doubt that this was a personal political favor. That is what the last 2 days of evidence showed - that Trump used Rudy as a communication channel where Rudy was claiming to represent Trump’s personal interests (rather than the county) to inform Z of the fact that he would not get a meeting or aid unless he announced investigations against Burisma and the 2016 election, and that Z resisting making the statement that would personally benefit Trump and that Trump continued to hold he aid/meeting as a carrot every time Z would not commit to the substance of the statement. The fact that Trump wasn’t fine with a generic corruption statement only proves how important that elections and Biden were to Trump. These announcements would personally benefit him - not the country.
Saying that “there is no quid pro quo” doesn’t change the actual facts. Saying “no quid pro quo, but you have to make the announcement to get the meeting” doesn’t change the fact that what was proposed ACTUALLY is a quid pro quo.
I have never met a used car salesman that is actually a good orator. Schiff is way better than Clinton. Obama was pretty good. I described more particularly what skills Schiff demonstrated.
And I didn’t equate being a good orator to the substance. Just pointing out the fact that he is really good.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote