Click here to close
New Message Alert
List Entire Thread
Msg ID: 2750482 Old guy just buried himself ... +4/-1     
Author:bladeslap
11/26/2022 8:10:52 AM

Old guy uses the argument about the Lancet that he believes they lie based on some article he found ..

So, since it has been proven Trump has lied thousands of times, you should equally discount anything he says as well, to include Stop-the-steal ... but you don't. Why? You have no integrity in both your words, your actions, and your thoughts. 

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2750496 I'm thinking you're not being truthful about that??? +3/-3     
Author:Citizens for sanity
11/26/2022 10:15:01 AM

Reply to: 2750482

There isn't a single claim, or accusation that has been proven to be true.

Rachel Madow says it and you take her word as gospel. It is not.

Your fact checkers were proven to be unreliable. Opinions are not facts. Although you like to believe they are because they support your narrative.

Bottom line, Trump has not been guilty of a single claim or accusation regardless of what is posted here.

Everyone's posts here should be treated the same. But it appears that only lefty posts are the only posts that apparently have credibility. Why do you suppose that is?

A mystery for all to ponder :)

Where has Observer II been. He seemed to be one of the few posters here that had facts relted to his posts.

Just an observation from an outside observer.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2750549 I'll start the list ...  +4/-2     
Author:bladeslap
11/26/2022 10:36:13 PM

Reply to: 2750496

Trump: There was no quid pro quo with Ukraine and I did not withhold payment so that they announce an investigation into Joe Biden

John Bolton (His National Security Advisor in WRITING):  The hotly-anticipated book, which gained notoriety during the impeachment proceedings against Trump when Bolton refused to voluntarily testify, confirms the “quid pro quo” arrangement with Ukraine at the heart of Trump’s impeachment, which Bolton describes as “bad policy, questionable legally and unacceptable as presidential behavior.” But in the former national security adviser’s recounting, Trump’s attempt to tie funding to Ukraine to receiving political favors is far from the only time that Trump tried to use U.S. foreign policy to improve his reelection chances. “I am hard pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my tenure that wasn’t driven by reelection calculations,” Bolton writes. (And yes, I read the book and that's exactly what he said, among other things)

Trump: When i get into office, I will eliminate the Deficit and Debt

Reality: Obama Decreased the deficit every single year in office and left with about a 500 billion dollar deficit. Trump more than doubled it in a few years, even though he said his policies would reduce it

 

Trump: We are going to replace obamacare with something far far better 

Reality: His version never came to be - There was no other "plan"

 

Trump: Biden is goign to eliminate your pre-existing conditions clause

Reality: Biden and Obama are the ones who put that into law - Trump was the one who was going to eliminate it with his yet-to-be baked up plan

 

Trump: Jan. 11, 2017: Trump tells reporters that he has "no deals that could happen in Russia because we've stayed away," adding that he could "make deals in Russia very easily" but "I just don't want to because I think that would be a conflict."

Reality: While he was CAMPAIGNING for the presidency, in 2015, he signed a letter of intent (which is publicly available for which i will provide a  link) to build Trump Tower in Moscow. Trump signed off on Moscow project during campaign: Giuliani | Reuters. And further to that, Cohen pleaded guilty last month to lying to Congress about the negotiations over a Trump Moscow project, which continued until June 2016 when Trump was securing the Republican nomination

 

SO Yes, Trump has been caught in numerous lies over and over and over ... If you don't see that, you're about as blind as they get ... You don't need fact checkers when his own attorney, Guilianni admits "Oh yes, well it looks like he did sign that document" ... and then his own attorney is found guilty for lying to congress about the Moscow deal -

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2750569 So start a list that has credibility +4/-2     
Author:Citizens for sanity
11/27/2022 10:11:56 AM

Reply to: 2750549

All those things on your post are misinformation at best.

Biden was recorded holding Ukraine hostage. FACT

Trump was crating an environment in this country to where we would not be dependent on other countries for anything essential. That was happening, but biden reversed everything and now we are energy dependent and are once again a whipping boy for China.

Unemployment was basically non-existent under Trump. More blacks, hispanics, and asians working then ever before in history.

GDP was over 4%. A figure Obama said could never be achieved.

Consumer confidence was through the roof.

Worldwide respect was someting we had under Trump. Biden lost that which is exactly why Russia invaded Ukraine.

Biden handed over billions of dollars in military equipment and got innocent americans killed in the process when he pulled out of Afghanistan. That in itself is an impeachable offense. The level of incompetence was an eye opener for what Biden truly is.

But please continue with your list of Trump moments.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2750571 You just lost the argument .... +4/-2     
Author:bladeslap
11/27/2022 10:14:18 AM

Reply to: 2750569

You're done Obsy...

You lost the argument - Thank you for proving my point

Bolton, his own National Security Advisor, wrote in black and white that he lied to the American Public - Are you going to dispute this? He gave numerous interviews - ALL The people testifying also said, while they hadn't heard directly from Trump, they knew about the Quid-Pro Quo - Bolton confirmed it - 

Don't waste my time anymore with your fairytale land stuff - I'm done with you

When you lose an argument, at least admit it and walk away with yoru tail between your legs ... not the cowardly stuff that I'm so accustomed to seeing you do



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2750577 Bladeslap, you are so full of….. +2/-3     
Author:Old Guy
11/27/2022 11:48:33 AM

Reply to: 2750571

You think you won a argument because of hearsay.  Really!

You need to understand what facts are!

But then we have learned what to expect from you!

 

 

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2750727 Hearsay? +3/-1     
Author:bladeslap
11/29/2022 11:03:59 AM

Reply to: 2750577

When somone is in the room and is an eye-witness and confirms what someone says, that's not hearsay ... Nice try though



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2750731 Really! +3/-3     
Author:Old Guy
11/29/2022 11:29:45 AM

Reply to: 2750727

About 3 posts up you admitted that all of the people who testified had NOT HEARD DIRECTLY FROM TRUMP!

All the testimony was hearsay!  Made up fake stories.

If just a one story about Trump was true, charges would have been filed.

But none of the stories are true, just political blovateing, all they do is investigate-investigate-investigate.

Trump has done zero of the claims, why do you think NO charges are filed.

Even your clam that John Bolton lied is Bull shit!

Bolton never said he lied about Trump.

What he said was that he would lie if National Security was in jeopardy.

Big difference, but the truth is always blown out of shape with you.!



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2750753 Really! +3/-1     
Author:bladeslap
11/29/2022 4:31:46 PM

Reply to: 2750731

1. Bolton was in the room and heard it FIRST hand ... More than once ... and he discussed this with him - That's DOCUMENTED

Do you know how to concede when you're wrong?

Old guy, you just hate being wrong. You hate when you can't prove your case so you get angry, throw out ridiculous arguments ...

His own national security advisor said he lied - That's good enough for most of us



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2750757 One word...............MIRROR (NT) +1/-2     
Author:Citizens for sanity
11/29/2022 5:14:35 PM

Reply to: 2750753


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2750754 "Really!" Yup, really. "Hearsay" is admissible in certain situations +3/-0     
Author:TheCrow
11/29/2022 4:36:11 PM

Reply to: 2750731

Hearsay Evidence

The rule against hearsay is deceptively simple, but it is full of exceptions. At its core, the rule against using hearsay evidence is to prevent out-of-court, second hand statements from being used as evidence at trial given their potential unreliability.

Hearsay Defined

Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. These out-of-court statements do not have to be spoken words, but they can also constitute documents or even body language. The rule against hearsay was designed to prevent gossip from being offered to convict someone.

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.

Generally, state law follows the rules of evidence as provided in the Federal Rules of Evidence, but not in all cases. The states can and do vary as to the exceptions that they recognize.

Most Common Hearsay Exceptions

There are twenty-three exceptions in the federal rules that allow for out-of-court statements to be admitted as evidence even if the person made them is available to appear in court. However, only a handful of these are regularly used. The three most popularly used exceptions are:

  1. Present Sense Impression. A hearsay statement may be allowed if it describes or explains an event or condition and was made during the event or immediately after it.
  2. Excited Utterance. Closely related to the present sense impression is the hearsay exception for an excited utterance. The requirements for this exception to apply is that there must have been a startling event and the declarant made the statement while under the excitement or stress of the event.
  3. Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement that is not offered for the truth of the statement, but rather to show the state of mind, emotion or physical condition can be an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. For instance, testimony that there was a heated argument can be offered to show anger and not for what was said.

Other Exceptions to Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

In addition to the three most common exceptions for hearsay, there are several other statements that generally will be accepted as admissible evidence. These fall into three categories:

  • Medical: Statements that are made to a medical provider for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment.
  • Reputation: Statements about the reputation of the person, their family, or land boundaries.
  • Documents: These documents typically include business records and government records, but can include learned treatises, family records, and church records.

Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

  1. The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
  2. The declarant refuses to testify;
  3. The declarant does not remember;
  4. The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
  5. The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.

If the declarant is deemed to be unavailable, then the following type of evidence can be ruled admissible in court. This includes:

  1. Former testimony;
  2. Statements made under belief of imminent death;
  3. Statements against a person's own interest; and
  4. Statements of personal or family history.


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2750755 "Hearsay" is admissibale in certain situations. I will bet that the sitting +3/-0     
Author:TheCrow
11/29/2022 4:37:42 PM

Reply to: 2750754

"Hearsay" is admissibale in certain situations. I will bet that the sitting judge(s) will be familiar with the rules.

The judges will also know about perjury....



Return-To-Index