After The Acquittal

[LesPalenik]

Build a wall?

already started,

[kers]

already started,

Wow, this turns me in favour of a wall !
What is this?

[LesPalenik]

Made from genuine Canadian snow! Picture was taken in the summer on the West Coast at Whistler Mountain in British Columbia.

https://www.whistlerblackcomb.com/explore-the-resort/activities-and-events/summer-activities/peak-2-peak-360-experience/giant-snow-walls.aspx

[Chris Kern]

Made from genuine Canadian snow! Picture was taken in the summer on the West Coast at Whistler Mountain in British Columbia.

If you order tickets now, México will pay for them.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Or Japan:

[JoeKitchen]

Here is a great video that I just happened along (purely by accident, I promise) that relates back to what Bernard repeatably asked over and over and over and over again in our previsou thread, namely if you are innocent why would you not just talk.  Or in more plain words, only guilty men refuse to talk to the police. 

Don't Talk to the Police

I guarantee that you'll find it interesting, and be surprised at just how easy it is for you to incriminate yourself even if you are truly innocent. 

The most surprising thing I found out is that although any statement you make during a police interview can be use by a prosecutor to prove you are guilty, statements that you make during the same interview that would be exculpatory and help prove your innocence are considered hearsay and inadmissible (at least in VA). 

[Alan Klein]

Here is a great video that I just happened along (purely by accident, I promise) that relates back to what Bernard repeatably asked over and over and over and over again in our previsou thread, namely if you are innocent why would you not just talk.  Or in more plain words, only guilty men refuse to talk to the police. 

Don't Talk to the Police

I guarantee that you'll find it interesting, and be surprised at just how easy it is for you to incriminate yourself even if you are truly innocent. 

The most surprising thing I found out is that although any statement you make during a police interview can be use by a prosecutor to prove you are guilty, statements that you make during the same interview that would be exculpatory and help prove your innocence are considered hearsay and inadmissible (at least in VA). 

A defendant doesn;t have to prove his innocence.  The state has to prove his guilt.  The dependent already claimed his innocence to the judge.  That's why there's a trial.  What purpose would a recording claiming his innocence to a cop be?  It also hearsay, because the defendant can testify his innocence (ie"I was out of state when the murder happened") if he wishes and be cross examined directly.  His tape can;t be.

On the other hand, a tape recording of the defendant stating his guilt goes right to the evidence the state needs to prove his guilt. The cop who recorded the tape can be cross examined.  And the defendant is always available to testify his statement about his guilt was tricked out of him or whatever, if he wishes.   

I'm not a lawyer, only guessing at this. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A defendant doesn;t have to prove his innocence.

Correct, because as Joe's linked video demonstrates, one can incriminate oneself.

However, not exposing oneself to a legal process upfront(!), of digging for additional explanation of what went down and why or why not (!) thus contextualizing decisions of a public office, reeks of hiding relevant evidence. Especially when there's no evidence to clear one of the allegations.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Especially when there's no evidence to clear one of the allegations.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Which would require cooperation of witnesses, which Trump blocked. What's there to hide?

[Alan Klein]

Which would require cooperation of witnesses, which Trump blocked. What's there to hide?

The Latin phrase Slobodan gave sums it up pretty well.  Why should a defendant provide witnesses if the prosecution never proved their claim.  The burden is on those who make the claim of guilt.  In the Trump case, it was political motivated for 3 1/2 years, long before Ukraine.  EVeryone understood that except Trump haters and Democrats.   The Democrats rushed through impeachment for political reasons then wanted the defendant to prove his innocence in the Senate when they did not provide evidence to prove his guilt.  So the case went to the jury without the defense needing to provide testimony. Not Guilty.

Next.

[faberryman]

The Democrats rushed through impeachment for political reasons then wanted the defendant to prove his innocence in the Senate when they did not provide evidence to prove his guilt.  So the case went to the jury without the defense needing to provide testimony. Not Guilty.

Are you of the "he didn't do it" or the "he did it but it is not impeachable" school of thought?

[Alan Klein]

[quote author=Alan Klein link=topic=133878.msg1152570#msg1152570 date=1581866139The Democrats rushed through impeachment for political reasons then wanted the defendant to prove his innocence in the Senate when they did not provide evidence to prove his guilt.  So the case went to the jury without the defense needing to provide testimony. Not Guilty.
Are you of the "he didn't do it" or the "he did it but it is not impeachable" school of thought?

Are you from the school of thought that believes he may not have colluded with the Russians but he must be guilty of something we can impeach him over?

[faberryman]

Are you from the school of thought that believes he may not have colluded with the Russians but he must be guilty of something we can impeach him over?

No. So, I'll ask again: are you of the "he didn't do it" or the "he did it but it is not impeachable" school of thought? If you would prefer not to answer, just say you would prefer not to answer. No problem.

[Alan Klein]

No. So, I'll ask again: are you of the "he didn't do it" or the "he did it but it is not impeachable" school of thought? If you would prefer not to answer, just say you would prefer not to answer. No problem.

What he did was call for an legal investigation of a former government official who appears to have used his office illegally.

[Robert Roaldi]

This is an interesting report on US infrastructure neglect (short video about 15 min) https://youtu.be/EdvJSGc14xA, and looks at railway tunnels to New York and the delivery of goods along the waterways that lead to the Gulf Coast. The trouble from a politician's point of view is that this kind of project takes longer than a news cycle to resolve and in a short-term world with short-term thinkers, it's easy to put stuff off. Till the bridges fall anyway.

[kers]

What he did was call for an legal investigation of a former government official who appears to have used his office illegally.

There was no investigation or reason for an investigation from the US justice department...

Trump personally pressured the Ukranian government to publicly announce that they would start an investigation into the Son of Biden.
He put pressure on the Ukanian government by withholding funds for the Ukranian defense, to force it.

[Rob C]

There was no investigation or reason for an investigation from the US justice department...

Trump personally pressured the Ukranian government to publicly announce that they would start an investigation into the Son of Biden.
He put pressure on the Ukanian government by withholding funds for the Ukranian defense, to force it.

2 + 2 = 4. Wrong! Fake maths: ask any kid who blew the exams!

;-)

[Craig Lamson]

There was no investigation or reason for an investigation from the US justice department...

Trump personally pressured the Ukranian government to publicly announce that they would start an investigation into the Son of Biden.
He put pressure on the Ukanian government by withholding funds for the Ukranian defense, to force it.

The Justice Department is currently collecting evidence and preparing a decision on if it should do the investigation.  Time will tell where it goes.

[faberryman]

The Justice Department is currently collecting evidence and preparing a decision on if it should do the investigation.  Time will tell where it goes.

Barr set up some sort of back door at the department of Justice to intake information about the Bidens and Ukraine gathered by Giuliani. My guess is we will hear nothing more about it since Biden is tanking in the polls.