• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Admits Withholding Evidence.

sjmay said:
It hasn't been a major focus because they might finally understand the way he talks and nuance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like recently when he said that the US needs to protect geniuses such as Elon Musk, Thomas Edison and the guy who invented the wheel. :eek: Trump is apparently not aware of the fact that Edison died 107 years ago and the guy or lady who invented the wheel wasn't an American. He or she lived in Mesopotamia about 5,000 years ago.

Or when he flew from Saudi Arabia to Israel and announced to Netanyahu, "We just got back from the Middle East."

Or when Trump told Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, "It's not like you have China on your border."

Donald Trump will be known forever as the great communicator. Donald knows what he is talking about. He is so feckin brilliant that most of the entire world doesn't have a clue what he is saying. And his inability to communicate is becoming worse by the day.
 
Paradoxical said:
Agreed but Trump has a habit of using wrong phraseology. I believe that what he meant by "material" is both arguments and stuff that the Democrats have but ignored and didn't bring forward that would make it clear there was nothing wrong with what he did.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that words have definite meanings. Those meanings can change based on context, but there are limits. "Blue" can never mean red, "Iron" can never mean laundry, and (crucially in this case) "do not" can never mean do. The act of saying something relies on such restrictions--words cannot just mean anything at all. They have to mean something that is restricted to convey information.

Trump said "they don't have the material." If by that he means that they (the dems) do have the material, how in the world are we supposed to think that Trump is ever saying anything at all? How in the world is anyone in the world (you included) supposed to know what in the world he could possibly mean? To universalize the principle on which you base your interpretation, there's basically nothing we could ever learn by listening to Trump--and if you think about it, that's a very damning thing. He could say that we're not going to war with Iran, by which he means we are going to war with Iran. The war is not with Eurasia, it has never been with Eurasia, it has always been with East Asia...and so on.

The only reasonable thing to do is assume that he has some basic level of straightforwardness in his utterances, such that the basic logical operators still mean what they typically mean. "They don't have the material" means just that--not having it. Not being in possession of it. 'We have the material" also means just that--Trump is saying that he has some (presumably relevant) material that the dems don't have.

And frankly, Trump holding back relevant material ought to cause outrage on both sides. Presumably everyone would want to know it if what the dems are claiming is really true--that is, if it really were the case that Trump is endangering national security, colluding with foreign powers to influence national elections, using various means to cover it all up, and so on, surely you and everyone else would want to know. I'd certainly want to know if Obama had been doing anything like that.
 
ashurbanipal said:
The problem with that is that words have definite meanings. Those meanings can change based on context, but there are limits. "Blue" can never mean red, "Iron" can never mean laundry, and (crucially in this case) "do not" can never mean do. The act of saying something relies on such restrictions--words cannot just mean anything at all. They have to mean something that is restricted to convey information.

Trump said "they don't have the material." If by that he means that they (the dems) do have the material, how in the world are we supposed to think that Trump is ever saying anything at all? How in the world is anyone in the world (you included) supposed to know what in the world he could possibly mean? To universalize the principle on which you base your interpretation, there's basically nothing we could ever learn by listening to Trump--and if you think about it, that's a very damning thing. He could say that we're not going to war with Iran, by which he means we are going to war with Iran. The war is not with Eurasia, it has never been with Eurasia, it has always been with East Asia...and so on.

The only reasonable thing to do is assume that he has some basic level of straightforwardness in his utterances, such that the basic logical operators still mean what they typically mean. "They don't have the material" means just that--not having it. Not being in possession of it. 'We have the material" also means just that--Trump is saying that he has some (presumably relevant) material that the dems don't have.

And frankly, Trump holding back relevant material ought to cause outrage on both sides. Presumably everyone would want to know it if what the dems are claiming is really true--that is, if it really were the case that Trump is endangering national security, colluding with foreign powers to influence national elections, using various means to cover it all up, and so on, surely you and everyone else would want to know. I'd certainly want to know if Obama had been doing anything like that.
Click to expand...

I am listening right now to Jay Sekulow, talking about all the EVIDENCE they have that Schiff never mentioned, including but not limited to the fact that Trump delayed aid to many OTHER countries. THIS is what he was talking about. Schiff and the other phonies don't want anyone to know about this other evidence.
 
sjmay said:
It hasn't been a major focus because they might finally understand the way he talks and nuance.
Click to expand...

Or he's just a loon:

:*I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.*

This ain't "how he talks" or "nuance".

This is apparently an incoherent amalgam of fringe Conspiracy theories.
 
Paradoxical said:
I am listening right now to Jay Sekulow, talking about all the EVIDENCE they have that Schiff never mentioned, including but not limited to the fact that Trump delayed aid to many OTHER countries. THIS is what he was talking about. Schiff and the other phonies don't want anyone to know about this other evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you would think that. If this is true, this is material that the democrats would have. Trump was saying that there's material he has that the democrats do not have.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I don't know why you would think that. If this is true, this is material that the democrats would have. Trump was saying that there's material he has that the democrats do not have.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He misspoke. Now what?
 
Paradoxical said:
Agreed. He misspoke. Now what?
Click to expand...

The point is, you have no reason to believe your interpretation. It would be like me saying "I'm not a woman" and you interpreting my words to mean that I am a woman. You'd not only have no reason to believe your interpretation, you'd have good reason to believe just the opposite.

Now, taking a step back, I suppose I'd agree that we're already in 1984 territory with respect to Trump's utterances. There's often no telling what they heck he means...which in itself is hugely problematic. But in this case, either he means what he says, or there's nothing we can claim based on his words. If the former, that means in turn that he's withholding relevant evidence (which I think we already knew), which should be an outrage to everyone, since it greatly diminishes the chances for a fair trial. If the latter, then the trial should proceed, and no one has any reason to think that what Trump said has any bearing.
 
Paradoxical said:
I would put Comey in the class of Schiff. Both certified loons and liars.
Click to expand...

Between Comey and Schiff, when this is all over, lets see which one of them is in jail. Compare that answer to how many of the Trump team is behind bars, and how many more of them will be. The list is getting pretty impressive.
 
Paradoxical said:
Agreed but Trump has a habit of using wrong phraseology. I believe that what he meant by "material" is both arguments and stuff that the Democrats have but ignored and didn't bring forward that would make it clear there was nothing wrong with what he did.
Click to expand...

Does he really though?

Or is "that's not what he meant to say" a super convenient way to cover his ass?
 
Geoist said:
This happened Wednesday in Davos. Surprised it hasn't been a more major focus on the MSM. Then again, this is the Age of Trump. Most scandals are forgotten and blown over within a week now.

“Honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material,” - Trump

Trump Admits to Withholding Evidence From Impeachment Inquiry

These are not the words of an innocent man. Seems he is admitting guilt but trolling the prosecution and claiming they cannot touch him.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with withholding "material" if it is privileged.
 
Tlrmln said:
There's nothing wrong with withholding "material" if it is privileged.
Click to expand...

Even if the defendant is in control of that material and the release of that evidence would prove him guilty?

:lamo

Will you listen to how ridiculous you sound?
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Even if the defendant is in control of that material and the release of that evidence would prove him guilty?

:lamo

Will you listen to how ridiculous you sound?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly how privilege works. If it's privileged, it's not discoverable in almost all cases.
 
Tlrmln said:
There's nothing wrong with withholding "material" if it is privileged.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court determined in U.S. v. Nixon that privilege is not universal.
 
Paradoxical said:
I am listening right now to Jay Sekulow, talking about all the EVIDENCE they have that Schiff never mentioned, including but not limited to the fact that Trump delayed aid to many OTHER countries. THIS is what he was talking about. Schiff and the other phonies don't want anyone to know about this other evidence.
Click to expand...

This has been discussed all afternoon. I suggest you pay a little more attention to more than Fox News. The other aid that was held up, was done by proper channels in every case notifying the congress. Then you have to ask, why was this time different? Because he didn't want anyone to know. Why?

Because it was part of a vast conspiracy to shake down Ukraine for fake investigations. It's so obvious it's becoming funny. The GOP senators and house members have become so beholden to Donald Trump, I wonder what their going to do without him.:violin
 
Tlrmln said:
There's nothing wrong with withholding "material" if it is privileged.
Click to expand...

If it's relevant to Trump's guilt or innocence, then yes there is. Doing so would also be illegal, as the Supreme Court already determined during the Watergate investigation/litigation.
 
Geoist said:
The Supreme Court determined in U.S. v. Nixon that privilege is not universal.
Click to expand...

So what? How is that relevant here, and how, pray tell, did the Supreme Court even come to have an occasion to decide that and rule that the executive privilege did not protect the materials in question were from being subpoenaed?
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
If it's relevant to Trump's guilt or innocence, then yes there is. Doing so would also be illegal, as the Supreme Court already determined during the Watergate investigation/litigation.
Click to expand...

If privileges did not apply any time information was relevant, there would be no such thing as privilege.
 
ashurbanipal said:
The point is, you have no reason to believe your interpretation. It would be like me saying "I'm not a woman" and you interpreting my words to mean that I am a woman. You'd not only have no reason to believe your interpretation, you'd have good reason to believe just the opposite.

Now, taking a step back, I suppose I'd agree that we're already in 1984 territory with respect to Trump's utterances. There's often no telling what they heck he means...which in itself is hugely problematic. But in this case, either he means what he says, or there's nothing we can claim based on his words. If the former, that means in turn that he's withholding relevant evidence (which I think we already knew), which should be an outrage to everyone, since it greatly diminishes the chances for a fair trial. If the latter, then the trial should proceed, and no one has any reason to think that what Trump said has any bearing.
Click to expand...

It is BEYOND ridiculous for leftists to think that Trump would admit he was with holding evidence. He has been to court. He is familiar with the process. You guys hyperbolically hinge on his every utterance trying to catch him in something. It is imbecilic IMHO to think he meant anything other than the Democrats were the ones who with held the exculpatory evidence such as Trump with holding aid from four other countries without a problem. There is more to come. That iks what Trump meant....evidence that has not yet been brought forward because the Dems know if they gave the full story, they would be sunk.
 
The AntiDonald said:
Between Comey and Schiff, when this is all over, lets see which one of them is in jail. Compare that answer to how many of the Trump team is behind bars, and how many more of them will be. The list is getting pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

Mind telling me which one of those people who are behind bars gas to do with Trump other than they worked him at one time? Did Trump not fire Flynn himself?
 
The AntiDonald said:
This has been discussed all afternoon. I suggest you pay a little more attention to more than Fox News. The other aid that was held up, was done by proper channels in every case notifying the congress. Then you have to ask, why was this time different? Because he didn't want anyone to know. Why?

Because it was part of a vast conspiracy to shake down Ukraine for fake investigations. It's so obvious it's becoming funny. The GOP senators and house members have become so beholden to Donald Trump, I wonder what their going to do without him.:violin
Click to expand...

I would think that you would want the Biden Crime syndicate cleared by an investigation. You folks are mind readers, eh? BTW, what makes someone running for president immune from being investigated for demanding the guy investigating his son be fired? Is there some law in that regard? Should the mafiosi all declare their candidacy now?
 
Tlrmln said:
If privileges did not apply any time information was relevant, there would be no such thing as privilege.
Click to expand...

But this isn't any time. This is an impeachment trial. There are rules to imposing executive privilege, and those rules describe when it's applicable, and when it's not.
 
Geoist said:
This happened Wednesday in Davos. Surprised it hasn't been a more major focus on the MSM. Then again, this is the Age of Trump. Most scandals are forgotten and blown over within a week now.

“Honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material,” - Trump

Trump Admits to Withholding Evidence From Impeachment Inquiry

These are not the words of an innocent man. Seems he is admitting guilt but trolling the prosecution and claiming they cannot touch him.
Click to expand...
Someone else made a thread on this earlier. Total nothingburger de luxe. Of course he has all the material - it's his and his administration's. If the Dems are so ****ing stupid to think they could wait for the Senate to get it for them, too damn bad.
 
Paradoxical said:
It is BEYOND ridiculous for leftists to think that Trump would admit he was with holding evidence.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...Albert Einstein was wrong once about physics (in his argument with Niels Bohr). Tiger Woods has missed a few putts. Hannibal lost a battle eventually. Experts sometimes screw up--especially when they're at the height of their powers and not on guard against arrogance. Is it BEYOND ridiculous to believe that the aforementioned masters of their respective domains made errors? I don't think so. Everyone screws up.

Paradoxical said:
You guys hyperbolically hinge on his every utterance trying to catch him in something.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree that Trump opponents sometimes do this. But then, Trump's utterances are often very difficult to decipher, as you seem to have agreed earlier. I'm not sure how you can blame the democrats for misunderstanding or misinterpreting.

Paradoxical said:
It is imbecilic IMHO to think he meant anything other than the Democrats were the ones who with held the exculpatory evidence
Click to expand...

Well, as long as you're willing to reverse the meaning of the sentences he uttered, you can make that interpretation. But that's literally the opposite of what he said.

Paradoxical said:
such as Trump with holding aid from four other countries without a problem. There is more to come. That iks what Trump meant....evidence that has not yet been brought forward because the Dems know if they gave the full story, they would be sunk.
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't put it past politicians on either side of the aisle to do something like this. But whether the dems actually did do so or not remains to be seen. If the argument is merely that the dems didn't mention such evidence in their argument, I'm not sure that's problematic, since that would be the job of Trump's defense team. Withholding evidence would mean that the dems came into possession of some exculpatory evidence that they then hid from Trump's defense team.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Hmmm...Albert Einstein was wrong once about physics (in his argument with Niels Bohr). Tiger Woods has missed a few putts. Hannibal lost a battle eventually. Experts sometimes screw up--especially when they're at the height of their powers and not on guard against arrogance. Is it BEYOND ridiculous to believe that the aforementioned masters of their respective domains made errors? I don't think so. Everyone screws up.



Well, I agree that Trump opponents sometimes do this. But then, Trump's utterances are often very difficult to decipher, as you seem to have agreed earlier. I'm not sure how you can blame the democrats for misunderstanding or misinterpreting.



Well, as long as you're willing to reverse the meaning of the sentences he uttered, you can make that interpretation. But that's literally the opposite of what he said.



I certainly wouldn't put it past politicians on either side of the aisle to do something like this. But whether the dems actually did do so or not remains to be seen. If the argument is merely that the dems didn't mention such evidence in their argument, I'm not sure that's problematic, since that would be the job of Trump's defense team. Withholding evidence would mean that the dems came into possession of some exculpatory evidence that they then hid from Trump's defense team.
Click to expand...

You do not know how the criminal justice system works, or for that matter, civil suits. I am not saying that the evil Democrats did anything illegal, although I think it really should be. But, I didn't set up the current system of jurisprudence. If I had, I would make it incumbent on both sides to present everything they are aware of so that the other side doesn't have to spend time uncovering what the other side knows. I would enact extremely heavy penalties on attorneys who with hold exculpatory evidence hoping that the other side doesn't know it exists. But.....we have a system of what I call "Go Fish" if you know that game. Either side can hide the ball hoping that the other side won't find out. Then again, this is the way the world works. Those in power and in the "NEWS" with hold information from the masses hoping the little lemmings won't dig deeper. Currently we have "NEWS" stations who are in bed with the Democrats with the notable and ONLY exception being Fox News. The news you get is what MSM wants you to get, just like skilled attorneys in this impeachment hiding the ball. This is how they are trained. I don't like it, but I am not king of the world.

Now it is time for the "REST OF THE STORY" as the dearly departed Paul Harvey would have said. This OP is about TRUMP with holding evidence, but we will soon see, as Trump has said, that he has mounds of "evidence" that your evil demented buddies have with held. THIS, my friend, is what Trump was talking about. You believe what you wanna believe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom