███████████ Impeachment Proceedings On Donald Trump ███████████

[Rightguide]

Glad to have his salary go somewhere else. Appreciate hm waiving it.

Do you think Trump is having any personal financial gain from being president?

No, I don't. His family has had to shut down future business plans. New operations still underway are due to contractual agreements that were made prior to the campaign and subsequent election. Don Jr. has talked at length on this subject when questions similar to yours have been brought up.

 

[Rightguide]

But wait, there's MORE!!!


White House review turns up e-mails showing extensive effort to justify Trump's decision to block Ukraine military aid
The Boston Globe | Mon Nov 25, 2019 01:44 UTC

A confidential White House review of President Trump's decision to place a hold on military aid to Ukraine has turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision.


Look Boss, de emailz, de emailz!!!!

Yes, Yes, Tattoo, I see....

The President has done nothing wrong.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

The president has done nothing right!

 

[Conager]

Start over, Timmeh.

Your BASE SOURCE was deleted by wikipedia. I cannot refute what doesn't exist any longer. You continue to promote unsubstantiated claims. "I found it on teh internet, so it must be true!" is akin to your nutcase relatives sending you a chain email with a subject line "FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:Bill Gates will send you a new computer if you forward this 50 times".

Sounds like much winning you are having!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The president has done nothing right!

Best quote of the day...

 

[KeithD]

The president has done nothing right!

I do understand that the whole point of Trump is to overturn the status quo of the government's business--and I can understand some not-too-bright voters supporting him for this activity alone--but what I can't fathom is why the Republicans in Congress, who live on imposing the status quo, are continuing to have anything to do with him neutering them for all time after this chaos is over.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Still waiting for Quenager to explain how impeachment is overturning the will of the people.

 

[colddiesel]

The President has done nothing wrong.

This will be quoted in contexts you haven't even thought of yet!

 

[Dribble]

This will be quoted in contexts you haven't even thought of yet!

He will never admit he is wrong. He is totally incapable of this.

 

[phrodeau]

The president has done nothing right!

He hasn’t screwed up Obama’s economy too much.

Yet.

 

[badbabysitter]

Start over, Timmeh.

Your BASE SOURCE was deleted by wikipedia. I cannot refute what doesn't exist any longer. You continue to promote unsubstantiated claims. "I found it on teh internet, so it must be true!" is akin to your nutcase relatives sending you a chain email with a subject line "FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:Bill Gates will send you a new computer if you forward this 50 times".

He just doesnt get that a non existent source isn't rock hard evidence

This guy is a lawyer?

 

[jomar]

No, I don't. His family has had to shut down future business plans. New operations still underway are due to contractual agreements that were made prior to the campaign and subsequent election. Don Jr. has talked at length on this subject when questions similar to yours have been brought up.

Mar-a-Lago, DC Hotel, his golf courses he plays at, soldiers bivouacked in out of the way hotel of his... (Not to mention family members, such as Ivanka's China trademarks...)

Do these not qualify as personal financial gain?

 

[jaF0]

Monday, Monday
So good to me
Monday mornin, it was all I hoped it would be
Oh Monday mornin, Monday mornin couldn't guarantee
That Monday evenin you would still be here with me



Or will it be


Tuesday afternoon
I'm just beginning to see
Now I'm on my way
It doesn't matter to me
Chasing the clouds away


Schiff: Judiciary Committee to receive impeachment report 'soon after' Thanksgiving recess
The Hill|55 minutes ago

When will the turkey's goose be cooked?

 

[HisArpy]

Start over, Timmeh.

Your BASE SOURCE was deleted by wikipedia. I cannot refute what doesn't exist any longer. You continue to promote unsubstantiated claims. "I found it on teh internet, so it must be true!" is akin to your nutcase relatives sending you a chain email with a subject line "FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:Bill Gates will send you a new computer if you forward this 50 times".

You're a buffoon. Wiki isn't the source I linked to.

THIS is the source:

https:

//www.ranker

.com/list/republican-musicians-and-singers-conservative-bands-/famous-conservatives

(Just copy & paste into your browser address bar - it will auto remove the carriage returns.)

Now, please get a clue and either drop out of the class or try harder to keep up, the current state of your awareness and reparte is pathetic. 2 years olds still learning to read do better than you of late.

He just doesnt get that a non existent source isn't rock hard evidence

This guy is a lawyer?

Why yes, yes I am. Imagine that. And now imagine what it takes to BE a lawyer. Because the worst lawyer in the world is more than you'll ever be or become no matter how much you wish for it.

 

[badbabysitter]

Why yes, yes I am. Imagine that. And now imagine what it takes to BE a lawyer. Because the worst lawyer in the world is more than you'll ever be or become no matter how much you wish for it.

What law school did you study at that didnt explain how evidence works?

 

[HisArpy]

What law school did you study at that didnt explain how evidence works?

The one that emphasized that HEARSAY isn't evidence unless there's an exception for it. If not, it's just gossip.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Timmeh is sealioning now.
BotanyBoomer has found his soul mate.

 

[cowslinger64]

The one that emphasized that HEARSAY isn't evidence unless there's an exception for it. If not, it's just gossip.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE–ENTIRE CASE 1
There are two types of evidence; namely, direct evidence
and circumstantial evidence.
In this case, the People contend that there is circumstantial
evidence of the defendant's guilt.
Let me explain what constitutes direct and circumstantial
evidence and how they differ.
Direct evidence is evidence of a fact based on a witness's
personal knowledge or observation of that fact. A person's guilt
of a charged crime may be proven by direct evidence if, standing
alone, that evidence satisfies a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
of the person's guilt of that crime.2
Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from
which a person may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence of another fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime
may be proven by circumstantial evidence, if that evidence, while
not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.3

Let me give you an example of the difference between
direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.
Suppose that in a trial one of the parties is trying to prove
that it was raining on a certain morning. A witness testifies that
on that morning she walked to the subway and as she walked she
saw rain falling, she felt it striking her face, and she heard it
splashing on the sidewalk. That testimony of the witness's
perceptions would be direct evidence that it rained on that
morning.
Suppose, on the other hand, the witness testified that it was
clear as she walked to the subway, that she went into the subway
and got on the train and that while she was on the train, she saw
passengers come in at one station after another carrying wet
umbrellas and wearing wet clothes and raincoats. That testimony
constitutes direct evidence of what the witness observed. And
because an inference that it was raining in the area would flow
naturally, reasonably, and logically from that direct evidence, the
witness's testimony would constitute circumstantial evidence that
it was raining in the area.
The law draws no distinction between circumstantial
evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance.
Either type of evidence may be enough to establish guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt, depending on the facts of the case as the
jury finds them to be.

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Circumstantial_Evidence.pdf



snip:


Hearsay is an out-of-court statement being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit introducing hearsay statements during applicable federal court proceedings, unless one of nearly thirty exemptions or exceptions applies.[1] The Federal Rules of Evidence define hearsay as:

A statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. (F.R.E. 801(c)).[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

 

[HisArpy]

Timmeh is sealioning now.
BotanyBoomer has found his soul mate.

Your word-of-the-day calendar is so 1970's.

Perhaps you'd do better if you actually tried to keep up by paying attention rather than goofing off and then doing the "dog ate my homework" thing.

 

[icanhelp1]

He will never admit he is wrong. He is totally incapable of this.

I have news for you! nobody on GB admits they're wrong!

 

[HisArpy]

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE–ENTIRE CASE 1
There are two types of evidence; namely, direct evidence
and circumstantial evidence.
In this case, the People contend that there is circumstantial
evidence of the defendant's guilt.
Let me explain what constitutes direct and circumstantial
evidence and how they differ.
Direct evidence is evidence of a fact based on a witness's
personal knowledge or observation of that fact. A person's guilt
of a charged crime may be proven by direct evidence if, standing
alone, that evidence satisfies a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
of the person's guilt of that crime.2
Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from
which a person may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence of another fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime
may be proven by circumstantial evidence, if that evidence, while
not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.3

Let me give you an example of the difference between
direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.
Suppose that in a trial one of the parties is trying to prove
that it was raining on a certain morning. A witness testifies that
on that morning she walked to the subway and as she walked she
saw rain falling, she felt it striking her face, and she heard it
splashing on the sidewalk. That testimony of the witness's
perceptions would be direct evidence that it rained on that
morning.
Suppose, on the other hand, the witness testified that it was
clear as she walked to the subway, that she went into the subway
and got on the train and that while she was on the train, she saw
passengers come in at one station after another carrying wet
umbrellas and wearing wet clothes and raincoats. That testimony
constitutes direct evidence of what the witness observed. And
because an inference that it was raining in the area would flow
naturally, reasonably, and logically from that direct evidence, the
witness's testimony would constitute circumstantial evidence that
it was raining in the area.
The law draws no distinction between circumstantial
evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance.
Either type of evidence may be enough to establish guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt, depending on the facts of the case as the
jury finds them to be.

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Circumstantial_Evidence.pdf



snip:


Hearsay is an out-of-court statement being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit introducing hearsay statements during applicable federal court proceedings, unless one of nearly thirty exemptions or exceptions applies.[1] The Federal Rules of Evidence define hearsay as:

A statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. (F.R.E. 801(c)).[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

Hearsay is NOT "circumstantial evidence". That you don't know that is why you're not a lawyer.

 

[cowslinger64]

Hearsay is NOT "circumstantial evidence". That you don't know that is why you're not a lawyer.

I didn't say it was. Don't project.

 

[HisArpy]

I didn't say it was. Don't project.

Did I SAY you did?

 

[icanhelp1]

Then why is impeachment written into the Constitution?

And how do you then justfy the impeachment of Clinton?

Conager: stupid and intellectually dishonest, like all Deplorables

Can you say Independent counsel, or, perjury?

 

[badbabysitter]

The one that emphasized that HEARSAY isn't evidence unless there's an exception for it. If not, it's just gossip.

Your article was gossip. i t was based off of someone's opinion which in turn was delete for inaccuracy

What would your law school consider an opinion based of inacurrate information?