Quote from: Viper1 on February 02, 2020, 03:13:13 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on February 02, 2020, 02:42:47 AM

What is quite interesting here is that you(and Viper

Do not take what I said and twist it to suit your agenda and then to twist it into some veiled personal attacks. I said he gave some good speeches, nothing more. I've made no comment on anything else regarding Schiff. ...

My misunderstanding, sorry.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on February 02, 2020, 08:40:10 AM

.....

If anyone is willing, I'm interested in which of these statements you consider true or false. And if you consider 2 or 3 of them true, why do you think they even used any defense other than the last?

'it was a perfect phone call, there was no quid pro quo'

'it's all hearsay and second hand information' (this implies that direct evidence would be relevant)

'even if he did do it, it's not impeachable'

imo, that answer is False, False, False.

I think the democrats forced the republicans to go from True, True, True => False, True, True => False, False, True. Which realllly looks like they don't care about the actual truth and are more concerned about protecting Trump.
...

Your three arguments can easily coexist, they are not exclusive of one another. There is absolutely nothing wrong in presenting an argument in the following form:

By direct reading of the call, the call did not contain "B".

Hearsay evidence of "B" may exist, but is not admissible in a court of law.

In the alternative, if the call was determined to contain "B", "B" is not impeachable.

If people were convicted of a crime for which a direct reading of the document does not show a crime, or by way of hearsay, or or for activities that were not crimes, we would be in a Stalinist or Mao or Nazi type of environment, just picking a few examples historically in which reality was similar.