Hearsay:

If two people say something, and there is no evidence in between, it is functionally the same as hearsay.

All evidence can be forged given enough time. Who is more likely to be able to forge evidence?

If juries take in everything they hear at trial, then aren't they speculating on each piece of information? If the actual can do this, so can the potential due to equal protection [Part of person is the stage their in] making it so witnesses can speculate.

Hearsay + No evidence = No trial.

Then add in intent [example]:

Her brain thinking it wasn't so hot but her body thought knew it was hot. Direct intent vs indirect intent [Which is sometimes also direct intent when brain thought is aligned with body thought.]. Body thought is what people perceive your actions meant, while brain though in actually what they meant. If the two don't align, it is functionally the same as an accident on the person's fault side, not the people knowing. To the people knowing it is intentional since brain thought and body thought aligns.

Sorry about length :/

Are you saying the Democrats are waiting so they can forge evdience?

evidence

Never know, just means it would be more probable

GG @HeadlessCowboy, you just advanced to level 1!

I can see that

You can also argue that Nancy is scared as fuck

since the Dems think they have the power

when they really dont '

They didn't actually impeach him legally due to the before and not argument

Its minor details they lack

The bot prevented me to fully explain it here though xD

But it is in that google drive link somewhere in the <#604315008490536980> section if you can put the dots together. 🙂

Lol how delusional are you

“Due to the before and not” argument

What does that mean

Okay, let me see if the bot will let me explain it this time xD

All I’m asking is for you to write that sentence

Before HoR was in power, it was not. Thus it never is because the not side always wins. Same with the presidency. Here is why:

The not side exists before it existed and forever backwards in time. It has to be weighed at something greater than 0.

Then due to the 14th amendment: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" it makes it so time has to be weighed the same. When you have one extreme then one finite sharing a constant, the extreme wins.

More info on logic here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QSzOUEPdlkPd0ppRSCZ1apETJaeLiS1S

Since the president was in power longer, he wins.

I had to shorten it by quite a bit so sorry if it jumps places

Ok, so there’s 2 separate arguments here

First, this “before the house of reps existed it did not” argument is just stupid

It is logic for ya, things before it outlasts it

Things before it? The presidency did not exist before the House of Representatives

It did

Before the current one

The current presidency existed before the current HOR therefore it has some supremacy?

That is the flaw with a 4 year term and 2 year terms :/

No. The powers of each are laid out in the constitution

Read the google drive, i beaten many people before you

GG @HeadlessCowboy, you just advanced to level 2!

And the HOR acts as an institutional body. That’s why they don’t re pass every single law every 2 years

No, obviously that’s just stupid

I beat that @Deleted User

Under their authority is easy to beat too

Have you heard of the document?

The responsibilities of the house are laid out in article 1, there’s nothing in the constitution that somehow limits it

The document?

The next is some jurisdictional argument

Then you don't know