The Right Side of the News

Your efforts to resolve this issue just reek of sincerity.--Percy

Oh, we know a lot, here in the reality-based community.Not everything, but a lot.You have no clue what's going on, trapped as you are in your right-wing big bubble o' lies.Paertisan politics are a serious problem. The right wing and dupes such as you are responsible for most of it.

Why on earth would you think that? You citing something factual deserves applause, if not outright gasps. Of course you provide no link to a transcript or even to a video, but hey, we'll take what we can get. Dershowitz's arguments were already rebutted long before he made them, first more than a couple hundred years ago by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65:

quote:

---

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

---

And then by himself just 20 years ago:

quote:

---

It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.

---

And then by William Barr in just the last year or so, who also prophetically said that the president doesn't have the right to orchestrate his own impeachment (he uses the term "abuses of discretion" but is referring to what is usually referred to as "abuse of power"):

quote:

---

The fact that President is answerable for any abuses of discretion and is ultimately subject to the judgment of Congress through the impeachment process means that the President is not the judge in his own cause.

---

--Percy

And yet you can provide no examples of hearsay evidence presented during the impeachment hearings before the House Intelligence Committee, at least none that don't reflect a misunderstanding of what hearsay evidence is. This is nonsense as written. This is even worse nonsense.You need a definition of hearsay evidence that doesn't cause all testimony not about oneself to be ruled hearsay.--Percy

And yet the comparison of red and blue states proves just the opposite. For example Kansas under Sam Brownback - Wikipedia was a disaster.Enjoy

You are very confused. Fiona Hill testified that what *she* said was true (because she was under oath), not that what she said Bolton said was true. Specifically, she said that Bolton referred to what Sondland and Mulvaney were up to as a "drug deal" (the "drug deal" reference is, of course, euphemistic and not literal). She didn't claim what Bolton said was true, which would have been hearsay.Wouldn't you like to know if Fiona Hill spoke the truth about what she heard Bolton say? Wouldn't you like Bolton to appear before the Senate and be asked whether in the presence of Fiona Hill he said he wanted nothing to do with the "drug deal" that Mulvaney and Sondland were cooking up?--Percy

To me it's a pretty accurate description of hearsay.

Lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations actually disincentives growth and investment.
Read before you attack.
When companies and the wealthy pay a high tax rate they find ways to get their income lower in order to pay less taxes but still get benefits. The easiest way for a corporation to do that is to invest in physical and human capital. Thee means buying and building stuff and hiring employees and paying them well.
If taxes are low they do not care. They will just hoard more cash and pay the higher ups more. But if they know they CEO and other bigwigs will get taxed an exorbitant amount, instead they will make actually investments. Lower taxes do not cause a trickle down they cause a flow up.
This is easily shown to be true by just looking at the US economy since WWII compared to the tax rates for corporations and the very wealthy.

Again, if you have no clue about the subject why are you attempting to discuss it?

No. There will be more jobs, because instead of hoarding the cash they will invest it in capital projects and human capital in order to lower their tax burden. Basic economics and history.

You are the only ignorant person in the discussion. Learn the subject matter then come back and have an adult conversation

Murkowski, Collins Ask Pointed Question About Trump’s Motives

quote:

---

The senators asked if Trump ever mentioned the Bidens in connection to corruption in Ukraine before the former Vice President announced his candidacy for president in April 2019.

​

Deputy Counsel to the President Patrick Philbin struggled to defuse the loaded question, spending some time explaining that his knowledge of what the President said comes only from the House’s limited inquiry and that some points were not thoroughly pursued in the record (he did not elaborate that the record was so curtailed because of the White House’s blocking of key administration figures from testifying).

​

Philbin eventually answered: I can’t point to something in the record that shows President Trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to Joe or Hunter Biden.

​

Philbin quickly pivoted to smearing the Bidens and rehashing Rudy Giuliani’s fact-finding mission.

---

As JonF told in Message 4672, she did not, not once. Do you mean you're done trying to understand what hearsay is, or you're done making the false claim that the testimony before the House Intelligence Committee was all a sham and hearsay?You *do* need a definition of hearsay that allows people to testify about what other people said. Using your definition, every time an attorney said, "Please tell us what so-and-so said," an objection would be raised that that would be hearsay. Nobody would ever be able to testify about what anyone said. Does that really make sense to you? Do you really think all the lawyer TV shows like Perry Mason and Matlock with all their courtroom scenes involving lots of examination and cross-examination about what people said got it all wrong because hearsay rules disallowed such testimony?I testified at a jury trial once. I described what I heard everyone say, including the defendant. No hearsay objections were raised. Not once. That's because testifying to what you heard someone say is not hearsay. Hearsay is when you testify to things you didn't hear or didn't see but only heard about indirectly.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Correct attribution in first quote from JonF to Faith.