Show of HandsShow of Hands

theNobamist November 15th, 2019 9:31pm

If you claim you heard "the phone call" between Trump and Ukraine, should you have to prove it? (Just being tagged in the WH won't work... could have been playing with interns in the bathroom)

6 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

chinito Florida
11/18/19 8:09 pm

Does it matter anymore? We have the transcript

DJAria Coushatta, LA
11/18/19 1:13 pm

How would you prove it? That seems difficult.

chinito Florida
11/18/19 8:08 pm

If you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt, you cannot convict someone. If they need more proof, they should get it somehow.

DJAria Coushatta, LA
11/19/19 1:01 am

It is not a legal trial in the House or senate. Furthermore, anything that is said in testimony is under oath... that means lying is a federal offense that can carry jail time. It is difficult to absolutely prove you were on the call.

chinito Florida
11/19/19 6:07 am

They have to prove that he was on the call (there are logs). Or that he was somewhere near somewhere that the call was being heard. And he wasn’t listening to the call by himself. I’m sure he was with many other people. Can they corroborate his story? It shouldn’t be that hard to prove.

Remember, the burden of proof it’s on the accuser.

chinito Florida
11/19/19 6:11 am

People lie under oath all the time. Just this week you had someone convicted for lying under oath. The last time a president was impeached was for that. You need something better than “your word against mine” kinda situation.

DJAria Coushatta, LA
11/19/19 1:27 pm

I can see your point.

Still, I think this is the wrong point of emphasis. The credibility of the witnesses should be questioned, but most of these people are career government workers and veterans.

chinito Florida
11/19/19 2:10 pm

Like Michael Flynn, Roger Stone or Bill Clinton?

Just saying that one witness is not enough to prove guilt.

DJAria Coushatta, LA
11/19/19 2:47 pm

Roger Stone wasn’t a career government worker. Neither was Bill Clinton. Both of them are partisans.

And I understand your point. But I tend to trust the accounts of witnesses, especially of those who have served in the military or under multiple administrations of varying parties.

chinito Florida
11/19/19 3:36 pm

Clinton is the definition of career politician. If you like, I can give you a list of people that have lied under oath. Like Comey and Clapper. You know that list is too long.

My point (again) is that you have to hear the whole story and be able yo corroborate it. Impeachment is a serious thing and you cannot do it based on what one person tells the Congress.

DJAria Coushatta, LA
11/19/19 4:43 pm

There is a difference between a career politician and a career government worker. One serves under administrations regardless of politics. And I’m aware they could lie, but basing every testimony on the notion would make witnesses useless.

FallingStar3 Petersburg, IN
11/15/19 7:33 pm

It's very interesting that all Democrats who have voted so far say you should have to prove it.

theNobamist Silicon Valley
11/16/19 3:34 am

I wonder if they register as Dems to mess with the polls.
I have a few neighbors who are ardent Republicans for years, but registered as Dem to mess with their primaries.
Then Ca went to "open primaries".

kscott516 Masks fail
11/16/19 7:14 am

This whole impeachment inquiry was a trap set by Trump and his team using Bolton as the leaker to known anti-Trump CIA Agents in the WH who were not on the call. Trump is letting them frenzy their base with false accusations first and will slowly release the actual transcripts that definitively PROVE they are all lying. 😂 Call 1 has been released. Call 2 ends the charade. Pelosi is picking up on the fact that it’s a trap now which is why she’s backpedaling on impeachment. 😂🤣 Trap set, bait taken!

theNobamist Silicon Valley
11/15/19 2:32 pm

If you claim you heard "the phone call" between Trump and Ukraine, should you have to prove it? (Just being tagged in the WH won't work... could have been playing with interns in the bathroom)