Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Less than 5% of the US populace understands "quid pro quo". That's why today Nervous Nancy changed her talking point to "bribery."
Nancy also said today "All roads lead to Putin" which is a ludicrous charge. And meaningless. President Trump is President. He's got to deal with the second most powerful man on the planet.
These statements tell me nothing meaningful happened today.
Trump left for another big rally. Dim need to start getting nervous. Bloomberg isn't going to save them.
for once i'm actually going to reply to one of your troll posts. because you are right. this is nothing more than a stunt to swing voter opinions .. and it's failing. it.
Yep I am laughing too, with Schiff and the Democrats trying to impeach Trump on nothing and your dumb ass trying to validate it, lol. The bottom line, Trump won't be impeached and he'll be reelected in 2020.
While the House is no court of law, you can bet the Senate will be. The House is very proud of the fact they they can make up their own rules, anything goes and because Schiff is the chief kangaroo no Republican can stop him from allowing hearsay evidence. In the Senate, if it gets that far, one of the first things that will happen is the federal rules of evidence will apply and nobody, certainly not the first two witnesses will be allowed to say as Taylor put it "I'm just repeating what I heard". Nope, ain't gonna happen.
Another Ukrainian official said today that neither Sonland or anybody else ever mentioned to him a connection between the aid being held up and an investigation being started. Certainly no demand that "dirt be produced or else" in the immortal words of Schitt for brains. How Schiff thinks he is going to get around this testimony and the testimony of Zelinsky, I can't imagine other than to say that of course Zelensky and all the other Ukrainian officials are lying. It also sounds like Sonland next week just might blow yesterdays "bombshell" right out of the water and testify that he never said what Taylor's staff said he did. Then what do they do?
A lawyer was just explaining how the crime of bribery must contain the element of Mens rea
Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessaryelement of many crimes.
Would an investigation of Biden and son be a crime? Don't think so.
The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".[1]:113 In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see concurrence). As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law.
The lawyer was explaining that while asking for an investigation of Biden to be used solely for purposes of the 2020 election might be construed as a crime, what if the purpose of Trump asking was in his mind solely tied to the 2016 election which is constantly on his mind with evidence being that he actually thinks that Ukraine ( whether they were or not ) was responsible for the hacking and not the Russians. Further prove can be seen in the phone call when Trump mentions the 2016 election. Trumps defense could argue that the 2016 election is all Trump had in mind and perhaps Biden had something to do with it. How is the prosecution going to prove that isn't the case? Point being, this will be so muddied up that no Republican Senator, not even Mitt Romney will vote to convict because bribery will have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that's not gonna happen folks.
Ukrainian Minister: Sondland Never Linked Military Aid To A Biden Investigation
Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said Thursday that the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland didn’t link military aid to the country to the opening of an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden over his son’s paid board position with an allegedly corrupt Ukrainian gas company, while his father was working with the country diplomatically, reported by Interfax Ukraine.
Yep I am laughing too, with Schiff and the Democrats trying to impeach Trump on nothing and your dumb ass trying to validate it, lol. The bottom line, Trump won't be impeached and he'll be reelected in 2020.
He will be impeached.
All it takes is a simple majority in the House.
Next year we will know if Trump gets reelected or not. If the market is trending down...I doubt he will be reelected.
The lawyer was explaining that while asking for an investigation of Biden to be used solely for purposes of the 2020 election might be construed as a crime, what if the purpose of Trump asking was in his mind solely tied to the 2016 election which is constantly on his mind with evidence being that he actually thinks that Ukraine ( whether they were or not ) was responsible for the hacking and not the Russians. Further prove can be seen in the phone call when Trump mentions the 2016 election. Trumps defense could argue that the 2016 election is all Trump had in mind and perhaps Biden had something to do with it. How is the prosecution going to prove that isn't the case? Point being, this will be so muddied up that no Republican Senator, not even Mitt Romney will vote to convict because bribery will have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that's not gonna happen folks.
So Trump's defense is that he is such a dumbass that he believed that Ukraine was responsible for 2016 interference and not Russia?
You want folks to believe that he brought up Biden because of the 2016 election that Biden was not running in and has nothing to do with the 2020 election that Biden is running in. Trump and his followers are so believable....
And by default they will elect which every clown on the left get the nod...and you the "Liberaltarian" will dutifully vote for since they have all the hallmarks of your ideology. GOTCHA
Makes perfect WTF's NONsense!!
The Impeachment Hearing resembled an SNL political skit. The two star witnesses Kent and Ambassador Taylor presented nothing but "Hear Say" testimony. Then Congressman Quigley who tried to sell the stupid idea that Hearsay is better than direct evidence, apparently this idiot isn't knowledgeable enough to know that "Hearsay" isn't admissible in a court of Law. All in all the hearing was nothing but a chattering class of dipshits on the part of every Democrat present. These people are truly a laughing stock.
did some research on this.
hearsay evidence is not allowed in federal courts, however, state courts may allow hearsay evidence. it goes into a category called "circumstantial" evidence. I think that is where quigley is coming from.
I'm not a lawyer but my guess is that you lead off with your best witness.
#1: The last three years has been about Dumbocrats' headlines that are nothing more than their assessment that the U.S. LEGAL voters are mindless deplorables who cannot evaluate facts in order to draw conclusions so the Dumbocrats announce the results for them, sometimes before the FACTS are discussed. The Nazis called it PROPOGANDA.... and of course with respect to their alleged FACTS they are "top secret" and cannot be disclosed even in a hearing to unseat a POTUS.
#2: Today, there is more attention focused on an NFL helmet attack than the school attack yesterday and the Dumbocrats' Latest Witch Hunt.
#3: PussLousy needs to fire some shallow minded clueless staffers for feeding her bullshit to regurgitate to the media. It sounds like some have handles on Eccie.
#4: With respect to order of witnesses: "It depends." But generally, you are correct in so far as who has the "burden of proof" ..... because a defense tactic can be to refrain from calling any witnesses, which generally prohibits the prosecution from offering any "rebuttal" witnesses who occasionally have the "emotional" appeal. In this proceeding it would seem the proper tactic would be to present the best and most explosive witness first to set the tone and thereby taint the minds of the spectators and the media who, like so many foolish posters on here, pretend they know what people really meant to say or what the witnesses were thinking ...
... like someone listening to someone talk on a cell phone riding in a car (or eating in a restaurant), but could also here what the person on the other end of the call was saying AND THINKING!
WTF Song or WMB song? "wax my balls", you fuckers are funny!
