He concluded that there is "ample and uncontradicted" evidence to remove trump from office.
|
|
The facts assembled in recent weeks were "uncontradicted" and "cannot be disputed," he added.
|
|
"What we're saying here is the evidence is uncontradicted that we have viable alternatives to a fossil fuel energy system," Gregory said.
|
|
"Chris, so far the evidence is uncontradicted that the president used taxpayer dollars to help him cheat an election," he said from the Capitol.
|
|
" In Craddick's closing argument, he told the jury that there was "no doubt" that Shadwick was the shooter, and that the evidence that Bankhead was the second robber was "uncontradicted.
|
|
" And then there's Fox's legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, who recently broke sharply with Fox orthodoxy to essentially declare Trump should be removed from office, writing in an op-ed last week that the evidence against Trump is "ample and uncontradicted.
|
|
"The court erred in imposing a longer period of confinement on the basis of finding an 'undue risk' that Mr. Cosby would 'commit another crime' despite uncontradicted expert testimony that his actual risk of reoffending is near zero," Mr. Green had said in court papers.
|
|
Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew NapolitanoAndrew Peter NapolitanoFox's Napolitano: There is 'ample and uncontradicted' evidence supporting Trump's removal from office Fox News legal analyst: There's 'undisputed evidence' Trump abused his power Fox's Napolitano predicts Trump will testify on own behalf at Senate trial MORE on Thursday penned an op-ed arguing that the articles of impeachment and the House managers' case against President TrumpDonald John TrumpDemocrats outraged over White House lawyer's claim that some foreign involvement in elections is acceptable Senators take reins of impeachment trial in marathon question session White House announces task force to monitor coronavirus MORE provide "ample and uncontradicted" evidence to support the Senate removing him from office.
|
|
"The scheme by President Trump was so brazen, so clear — supported by documents, actions, sworn testimony, uncontradicted contemporaneous records — that it's hard to imagine that anybody could dispute those acts, let alone argue that that conduct does not constitute an impeachable offense or offenses," said Mr. Berke, the Judiciary Committee lawyer.
|
|
"The scheme by President Trump was so brazen, so clear — supported by documents, actions, sworn testimony, uncontradicted contemporaneous records — that it's hard to imagine that anybody could dispute those acts, let alone argue that that conduct does not constitute an impeachable offense or offenses," Barry Berke, the majority counsel for the Judiciary Committee, said in his prepared remarks.
|
|
"The scheme by President Trump was so brazen, so clear, supported by documents, actions, sworn testimony, uncontradicted contemporaneous records that it's hard to imagine that anybody could dispute those acts, let alone argue that that conduct does not constitute an impeachable offense or offenses," said Barry Berke, presenting the case against Trump for the Democrats in a Judiciary Committee hearing on Monday.
|
|
In the early weeks of his campaign, Bloomberg's heroic ads were contrasted by a steady drip of video footage from his decades of appearing at various accursed Ideas Festivals and oligarch-in-conversation events, all of which reliably revealed the billionaire as a sniffy and dismissive man with the sort of strange, soft ideas that rich people tend to form over the course of several uncontradicted decades.
|
|
Fox News analyst Andrew NapolitanoAndrew Peter NapolitanoNapolitano says bringing up new charges would be 'mistrial' if impeachment were in criminal court Fox's Napolitano: There is 'ample and uncontradicted' evidence supporting Trump's removal from office Fox News legal analyst: There's 'undisputed evidence' Trump abused his power MORE argued Thursday it would be a "mistrial" for House managers to bring up crimes the president is not charged with in a criminal trial, though he acknowledged doing so in the impeachment trial is another matter.
|
|
Read more:What to expect on day 3 of opening arguments in Trump&aposs impeachment trialFox News legal analyst says there is &aposample and uncontradicted&apos evidence that Trump should be removed from office&aposIf the truth doesn&apost matter, we&aposre lost&apos: On day 2 of opening arguments, House prosecutors hammered Trump for abusing his power and laid the groundwork to remove him from officeTrump&aposs lawyers are fighting impeachment like a Fox News spectacle to rile up the president&aposs base and warn senators they&aposll lose their seats if they defect
|
|
According to Carneades, an impression may be plausible in itself; plausible and uncontradicted (not distracted by synchronous sensations, but shown to be in harmony with them) when compared with others; plausible, uncontradicted, and thoroughly investigated and confirmed. In the first degree there is a strong persuasion of the propriety of the impression made; the second and third degrees are produced by comparisons of the impression with others associated with it, and an analysis of itself. Carneades left no written works; his opinions seem to have been systematized by his pupil Clitomachus, whose works, which included one "on suspension of judgment," were made use of by Cicero.
|
|
" Prior to the search, no one was threatened with arrest, and, according to Rand's uncontradicted testimony, it "was all very congenial at this time." Gonzales testified that Alcala actually helped in the search of the car by opening the trunk and glove compartment. In Gonzales' words: > "[T]he police officer asked Joe [Alcala], he goes, 'Does the trunk open?' > And Joe said, 'Yes.
|
|
Given the uncontradicted facts recited > by the Court of Appeals, there was a combination within the meaning of § 1 > between respondent, Milne, and Kroner, and the Court of Appeals erred in > holding to the contrary.390 U.S. at 150. Justice White pointed out other possible combinations that Albrecht might properly have argued existed. First, he could have claimed a combination between Herald and himself, at least "as of the day he unwillingly complied" with Herald's advertised price.
|
|
Objections, though permissible during opening statements, are very unusual, and by professional courtesy are usually reserved only for egregious conduct. Generally, the prosecution in a criminal case and plaintiff in a civil case is the first to offer an opening statement, and defendants go second. Defendants are also allowed the option of delaying their opening statement until after the close of the prosecution or plaintiff's case. Few take this option, however, so as not to allow the other party's argument to stand uncontradicted for so long.
|
|
In 1982 Tavoulareas was unsuccessful in bringing $2 million libel suit against the Washington Post for saying he used his corporate position to "set up his son" (Peter Tavoulareas) in a shipping business. The initial jury's award was put aside by the judge hearing the case because he said Tavoulareas had not proven "actual malice". The Court of Appeals confirmed the ruling, finding the story substantially true and holding that "the record abounds with uncontradicted evidence of nepotism in favor of Peter [Tavoulareas' son]".TAVOULAREAS v.
|
|
However, the two defense witnesses who testified at trial stated that the fire had started at the top of the house in the attic. One of these witnesses testified that, as the attic burned, he was located near the ground floor east window where Simon had confessed to starting the fire, but there was no fire there. According to Justice Semmes, '[T]hese witnesses, who are unimpeached, and whose testimony is uncontradicted, establish the fact, that the confessions of the prisoner as to the particulars of the burning were altogether untrue.
|
|
The immigrant Baptists and their English supporters held meetings at Eythorne and also at Canterbury, about away. Joan Boucher, or Bocher, who is sometimes described as Joan of Kent and known to have been involved in "reforming circles" in Canterbury DNB is said by "uninterrupted and uncontradicted tradition" Newton Brown to have been an early member of the church at Eythorne. She was burnt at the stake at Smithfield on 2 May 1550 after refusing to recant her views on the incarnation of Christ. The church's website tells us that she spoke of "our little meeting in quiet Eythorne" at the preceding trial.
|
|
To the Vedantins vyapti is the result of an induction by simple enumeration. The Naiyayikas firstly look for the relation of agreement in presence between two things, and thereafter look for the uniform agreement in absence between them, then they look for contrary instances and finally eliminate all upadhi or conditions. They supplement the uncontradicted experience of the relation between two facts by tarka or indirect proof and by "samanylakshana" With regard to the "Ashta Siddhis" that already exist in nature, the followers of Aurobindo agree that consciousness in itself is free to communicate between one mind and another without physical means consciously and voluntarily, and it does so through two siddhis, namely, "Vyapti" and "Prakamya". Vyapti is when feelings of others from outside are felt, and also when one sends own thoughts to others.
|
|
Next, Roberts determined that the principal's conclusion that Frederick's banner "advocated the use of illegal drugs" was reasonable. Acknowledging that the banner's message was "cryptic", nevertheless it was undeniably a "reference to illegal drugs".Morse, 551 U.S. at 402. In reaching this conclusion, Roberts contrasted "the paucity of alternative meanings the banner might bear" against the fact that the two immediately available interpretations of the words support this conclusion: And even if that second interpretation does not support the principal's conclusions that the banner advocated the use of illegal drugs, Wrapping up this discussion, Roberts rejected the two alternative accounts for Frederick's speech provided in the dissent: first, the dissent noted that Frederick "just wanted to get on television", which it characterized as a "credible and uncontradicted explanation for the message".
|
|
Under the "clearly erroneous" standard, where a trial court (as opposed to a jury or administrative agency) makes a finding of fact, such as in a bench trial, that finding will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed" by that court. For example, if a court finds, based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, that a defendant broke a window by throwing a 30-pound rock over 100 feet, the appeals court might reverse that factual finding based on uncontradicted expert testimony (also presented to the lower court) stating that such a feat is impossible for most people. In such a case, the appeals court might find that, although there was evidence to support the lower court's finding, the evidence taken as a whole—including the eyewitness and the expert testimony—leaves the appellate court with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed by the Court below.
|
|