Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2017 6:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/9/2017 10:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2017 9:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/9/2017 7:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2017 7:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2017 4:48:00 PM (view original):
The evidence is from the notes of a fired man.

Boy, that's something I'd buy in at 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You prefer to accept facts from the angry orange man who tweets in the middle of the night wearing a tin foil hat?

THERE ARE NO FACTS!!! NONE!!! ZERO!!!

ONLY HE SAID, HE SAID.

Of course there are facts. Unless you want to assert that they've never talked.

More than likely, one of them is telling something closest to the truth. Unless they are both flat out lying.

Which of the two has more credibility?

Yeah, who has ever heard of a recently fired employee lying about the boss that just unexpectedly fired them?

Lying is one thing. Lying under oath is another.

When it's simply "he said-he said", how exactly is lying proven?
I don't think the Liberals' idea of the guy they want to believe must be telling the truth stands-up in any Court (or even with the majority of the public).

dina and mixtroy make b_l sound like Archie Bunker.
God Bless (oops, sorry Libs) anyone still trying to reason with them.

Neither really. But one is President, the other a private citizen

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2017 8:48:00 AM (view original):
Again, if its' a "he said / he said" situation, then it comes down to credibility.

Who is more credible . . . the guy testifying under oath before a senate subcommittee, or the orange buffoon who hides behind often misspelled paranoid-filled tweets in the middle of the night?

Did you actually see said guy testifying? It was "I felt", "I thought", "My impression", etc, etc. He said nothing but a lot of words.

I felt Comey's testimony was weak. I thought he was telling us about his feelings not what was said. My impression is he's a disgruntled ex-employee working around the facts to suit his agenda.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2017 8:48:00 AM (view original):
Again, if its' a "he said / he said" situation, then it comes down to credibility.

Who is more credible . . . the guy testifying under oath before a senate subcommittee, or the orange buffoon who hides behind often misspelled paranoid-filled tweets in the middle of the night?

Next time you're in Court, tell the Judge, "I know it's my words against his, but I'm more credible." and see what happens.
Courts rely on little things called facts and evidence - 2 things Libs like to ignore.
Trump must be one hella smart man, since he's done so many illegal things, yet there's not one actual fact or bit of evidence linking him to them.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2017 8:48:00 AM (view original):
Again, if its' a "he said / he said" situation, then it comes down to credibility.

Who is more credible . . . the guy testifying under oath before a senate subcommittee, or the orange buffoon who hides behind often misspelled paranoid-filled tweets in the middle of the night?

Without proof, credibility is nothing more than a popularity contest.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2017 8:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2017 8:48:00 AM (view original):
Again, if its' a "he said / he said" situation, then it comes down to credibility.

Who is more credible . . . the guy testifying under oath before a senate subcommittee, or the orange buffoon who hides behind often misspelled paranoid-filled tweets in the middle of the night?

Did you actually see said guy testifying? It was "I felt", "I thought", "My impression", etc, etc. He said nothing but a lot of words.

I felt Comey's testimony was weak. I thought he was telling us about his feelings not what was said. My impression is he's a disgruntled ex-employee working around the facts to suit his agenda.

He said 'i could be wrong' after many of those 'i felt, I thought, my impression' comments

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2017 9:38:00 AM (view original):
Uh, credibility of witnesses is often a deciding factor in court testimony it situations where evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways, or is circumstantial at best.

Trump's demeanor, temperament and public persona, and even his own goddamned words and tweets, give him little to no credibility among people who don't have their heads shoved completely up their own *****.

There's probably a thousand soundbites of Dems and Repubs calling Comey incompetent. I'd play that in court and you don't have a credible witness.

And without evidence, a testimony is worthless. The testimony is meant to corroborate the evidence... Not be the only evidence. In criminal cases there can't be reasonable doubt.

you say it is the only evidence....and the case is still being built...who said it was over.

even a big chunk of his supporters admit that trump is not credible..they like him anyway...he is a symbol for their anger........

Liberal nonsense.