Do you have an example that demonstrates your proposed scenario/situation?

True statements are unable to be shown as false for they never are.

Better?

Trump has been a bigger supporter of a Ukrainian government being directly influenced by Russia.

Number six, I'm not sure about. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Here's a fact:

Immediately after winning the republican nomination, someone in the Trump campaign changed the republican national platform to no longer arm the rebels at the time(fighting against Russian influence in Ukraine).

Conveniently forgotten in today's narrative.

Obama supported anti-Russian rebels as a means to deliberately stop the spread of Russian controlled territory in the area. Trump... well look what's happened since Trump has been in office.

Some true statements are verifiable, but no true statement is falsifiable.

Facts cannot be false.

Verifiability takes precedence, particularly regarding foundational premisses.

If true statements cannot be falsified, then falsifiability fails as a standard for truth, and/or warrant.

Right. Just seems rather relevant.

The transcript (which the White House said is not verbatim) shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything.
Ukrainians have said there was no quid pro quo.
Ukraine did not know security assistance was paused until a month after the 25 July call.
No Ukrainian investigation into Joe Biden took place.
Ukraine received assistance without such an investigation.
Trump has been a bigger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor, Barack Obama. — ZzzoneiroCosm

None of which is mutually exclusive to demands for quid pro quo. In other words, all of the above could be true and Trump could have engaged in placing the Ukrainian government under duress...

Did you not watch the defense’s case? — NOS4A2

Same thing they've been claiming all along.

True statements cannot be falsified.

Well done.

You want to know who it is - which person - that Trump wants to stop from telling the truth...

Look to see who Fox news is attacking.

Adam Schiff does not always have to be right in order for Trump to be clearly, undeniably, verifiably, and irrefutably guilty of obstruction.

Attack the guy telling the truth about Donald Trump especially if Donald feels hurt by it. A clear and provable behavioural pattern of the Donald himself.

Evidently, when pressed, the meeting participants claimed ignorance of the fact that some of the people that they were collaborating with to obtain damaging information regarding Hillary Clinton were - in fact - acting as a proxy for Russian government officials.

Schiff argued precisely how certain rules of normal litigation do not - and cannot - equally apply to an impeachment trial. The magnitude could not be greater. This is a precedent case. Make no mistake about it. This is not well trodden ground.

Trump has done everything he believes is in his power to do to influence, diminish, belittle, curtail, impede, and/or otherwise stop any and all investigations that he doesn't like.

Everyday facts show this quite nicely. It is irrefutable. The sheer amount of animosity Trump puts on display during public confrontations serves as more than adequate evidence of Trump's attitude regarding two particular investigations. One was all about Russian interference in the 2016 election which found at least four campaign members were regularly consulting known agents of hostile foreign governments(known Russian operatives/lobbyists/agents/advocates/representatives).

At least one of these campaign members bears the Trump namesake.

All I’m saying is Schiff engaged in the activities he accuses of others. — NOS4A2

Irrelevant. Immaterial. Beside the point.

That does not look to me to be even a sentence. — Banno

You're right.

:razz:

Falsifiable hypotheses are about observable entities.

An hypothesis is falsifiable when contradicting observations or verified statements.

The same rules for civil litigation do not apply to this impeachment trial. It is not just a civil case.

All the relevant evidence needs to be introduced.

The constitutional responsibility of Senate members during impeachment is clear. Justice Roberts reminded the Senate of it already. It needs to be enforced. No member who is not acting impartial to the evidence ought be allowed to continue. All members who cannot ought be dismissed from duty and resign their post, as they cannot fulfill the duties and/or obligations bestowed upon them. They cannot keep their pledge/oath.

90% support among Republicans. It can't be ignored — ZzzoneiroCosm

That does not tell me enough to place much value upon it.

The trial ought not only be public... I'd be all in on public mandate to watch the trial...

Observation...

or...

...contradicts with, or stands in direct opposition to some other bit of knowledge(statement) that has been previously verified?

:brow:

Trumpian Apologetics...

:wink:

That has a nice ring to it...

I've been watching a LOT of Fox News lately. Keeping a finger on the pulse of the nation, sadly. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The pulse of Trump apologists...

Fox News' destructive influence is precisely why Graham and McConnell are convinced they can get away with this. Fox News defends, even congratulates, their non-impartiality. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'll take your word on that...

The same measure would apply to Graham, and all other Senators who've already made public pronouncements of guilt or innocence.

I don't care about Fox News. I care about it when the Senate majority leader cannot perform the duties of all members of the Senate during an impeachment trial - and he's allowed to remain in place.

Mitch McConnell needs to recuse himself. He knows that he cannot do both... be and not be an impartial juror during the ongoing impeachment process.

HE ought be removed.
— creativesoul
I'm sure the Senate Ethics Committee will get right on that. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Still have not seen the video. If he openly and clearly stated that he could not be an impartial juror in this matter of impeachment, then he has confessed to not being able to perform one of the very specific duties bestowed only upon members of the Senate.

He has admitted to dereliction of duty. Given the historical unprecedented level of importance in these impeachment matters, McConnell ought at least recuse himself and/or resign. He has failed to perform as promised, and openly said that he could not do what the Constitution said he must as a member of the Senate. He said he cannot perform as instructed.

He has no business being a member of the jury of this impeachment trial.

We certainly would not allow a jury member openly professing that their position on the matter is aligned with the defendant's prior to the start of the trial.

If McConnell already believes that the impeachment is a "witch hunt", then he cannot act as an impartial juror. That is the sole responsibility of the Senate that makes it stand apart from all other governmental agencies/institutions.

The Republican Senate members have a leader who is - by any and all reasonable accounts - siding with the defense(holding the same position as the president) and was prior to the start of the trial in which he has sworn an oath...

...to be an impartial juror during an impeachment trial.

That is itself a dereliction of duty. HE ought be removed. He is admittedly unfit - unable - to successfully execute his responsibility in this situation as it is clearly demarcated in the Constitution.

Alas though, the point is being avoided...

How do we know when the experts are wrong?

Experts are wrong before they know it. So... We cannot just ask the experts. However, that is not to say that there are many historical situations where the experts were wrong, and we now know that much. Some experts may even be aware of being wrong about something themselves during their own lifetime...

The point stands...

We cannot always know that the experts are wrong by asking them. As a matter of fact, we cannot ever know that experts are currently wrong by asking them their opinion on the matter. We have to know what that opinion is in order to know that it is wrong... at least in most cases... but... because they do not ever know that they are wrong while they are...

We cannot know that they are by asking them.

Now what?

You are claiming that our path to knowing when the experts have been wrong is to ask them.

Is that correct? — creativesoul

It's not quite as simple as that, but the details would bore you — Bartricks

I may not find it boring to critically examine your position...

Is it still based upon logical possibility alone?

Are you a psychologist? Hope not, because your analysis is rubbish. — Bartricks

It was not an analysis. It was just offering a few possible explanations. That's something your entire philosophy rests it's laurels upon. Logical possibility alone.

Of course, you know that already, or at least ought given that you've several years graduate level academic philosophy.

The constitution grants the House full power of impeachment, not just select individuals and committees. That’s why the demands for documents were deemed invalid. This is precedent.
— NOS4A2
By having the full power of impeachment, no other body has Constitutional authority to deem anything that transpires as invalid. You may judge it unfair, but you can't claim it's unconstitutional. — Relativist

Unfortunately they can and do... and in doing so convince some who do not know better.

I'm telling you they don't care. They have Fox News and Facebook buttressing a rightist simulacra (a la Baudrillard) and they're just fucking going for it: Foisting a universe of alt-facts on the millions of dumbed-down a-historisic gullibles disgracing the Union. All the prep-work is done: The US broadly is dumb as fuck and gullible as fuck and Facebook has asceneded to the simulacric lodelight. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I like to think that this very situation will cause change in the right direction...

Isn't it the case, that when the House (as an entity) decided to begin impeachment proceedings, demands for evidence were valid? — Metaphysician Undercover

He... and the defense are trying to import civil rules to this... not civil case.

There is no excuse for failing to honor a subpoena to testify as a witness on these matters of such national importance.

The relevant precedent(regarding the first article) is found during the Nixon administration. Trump has openly admitted to soliciting a foreign government to conduct an investigation on an American citizen, and he did so while refusing to follow the advice of the head of national security counsel. That American citizen just also happens to be a political opponent of Trump. Trump actually hired an outside counsel to publicly speak and/or act on his behalf about Ukrainian matters, long before this became public and people began resigning and whistle-blowing.

Trump got his side of the story out first.

There are several key witnesses all of whom had conversations with Trump and/or each other and all of their stories corroborated. Trump said "No quid pro quo" while continuing to hold back the funds and continuing to make a concerted attempt for Ukraine to do what Trump wanted, which - in and of itself - was for the Ukrainian government to interfere with an American presidential candidates life during election season.

That investigation has been performed and closed by the appropriate American institutions.

He's repeating the apologists procedural argument.

You are claiming that our path to knowing when the experts have been wrong is to ask them.

Is that correct?

It ought not be possible for that to be the case.

Wow. Talk about unabashed dereliction of sworn duty...

:confused:

Justice Roberts better do his job here. That juror(Mr. McConnell) must be removed. He ought be compelled to recuse himself, at the very least. Anyone else who so believes that they cannot be an impartial juror. Fer fuck's sake, this is perhaps the most important of all responsibilities bestowed upon the members of the Senate. It is one that only they hold... only they wield... they must be able to honor and execute their responsibilities; their sworn duty.

Cannot take them at the word... can we?

:brow:

How do we know when the experts have been wrong? — creativesoul

You ask the experts. — Bartricks

What about all the time that passes prior to their becoming aware of that fact?