House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment

[Hutch Starskey]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

Parnas was arrested just as the Ukranian Scandal broke, and initially both Lev and Igor refused to cooperate with prosecutorsand refused to provide information to the government. But then Dumb Donald did his usual "I don't even know these guys" disavowel he does whenever any of his minions get caught doing illegal shit.

Lev's feelings were incredibly hurt. He thought he had a special relationship with Trump. When Trump dissed him on national television, Lev got mad, changed lawyers, and started cooperating with the feds. This evidence is the result of Lev's hissy fit that Donnie didn't defend him.

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

According to who? Schifferbrains?

He need to testify in the Senate under oath.

Call Lev's lawyer to verify it, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This whole thing is a joke and it has been from the start! Polls show quite plainly that the American people recognize that fact even if you don't.

Sure, dope.

66% of Americans want John Bolton to testify in Senate impeachment trial

Our Poll Finds A Majority Of Americans Think The Evidence Supports Trump’s Removal

 

[j-mac]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

Parnas was arrested just as the Ukranian Scandal broke, and initially both Lev and Igor refused to cooperate with prosecutorsand refused to provide information to the government. But then Dumb Donald did his usual "I don't even know these guys" disavowel he does whenever any of his minions get caught doing illegal shit.

Lev's feelings were incredibly hurt. He thought he had a special relationship with Trump. When Trump dissed him on national television, Lev got mad, changed lawyers, and started cooperating with the feds. This evidence is the result of Lev's hissy fit that Donnie didn't defend him.

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

According to who? Schifferbrains?

He need to testify in the Senate under oath.

Call Lev's lawyer to verify it, dope.

Democrats are the ones making the claim, it's up to them to prove that claim....

 

[kyzr]

The House impeached Trump on the "evidence" it had and passed two Articles:

Article-2 should be dismissed immediately because the USSC voided it when they took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. Trump does in-fact have the right to legal remedies and that is NOT "obstruction of the House". There is no such thing. That charge is moronic and an "Abuse of Power" by the House.
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

Article-1 can be litigated in trial, but all of the "hearsay" evidence needs to be thrown out per senate rules of evidence. So Article-1 can't be proven and Trump will be acquitted.

As Professor Turley said, "there was an abuse of power, by the House of Representatives".

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

Obstruction of Congress was one of the articles against Nixon. It exists because Congress says it exists. Trump is abusing his power by refusing to cooperate with Congress. This is legal remedy for Congress to exert their constitutional authority to investigate and oversee the executive.

1. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments and can exclude "hearsay" evidence. All it takes is 51 votes, which Mitch has.
2. You are wrong. The House is NOT the Executive's boss. They are co-equal branches of government. The Judiciary breaks ties as seen in the link I provided. Article-2 is VOID. Read these articles and provide links to disprove if you can, because your opinion isn't worth anything:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

We don’t know what Mitch has. They can exclude evidence if they want, but that’s mostly because they’re willing to violate their oaths to be impartial.

The judiciary has basically no role in impeachment. The power of impeachment is solely vested in the Congress. Implicit in this power is the ability to investigate and oversee the executive. The Constitution does so because without it we have a king, not a president. Trump is trying to make his administration above all accountability. That’s the opposite of what the founders intended.

1. Not allowing hearsay isn't violating any oath. Duh.
2. Stop tap-dancing around the point. We are discussing the constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC. The House can impeach Trump for his orange hair, but that doesn't make it constitutional. The House cannot charge Trump with "Obstruction of the House" when Trump has the right to litigate in the courts. The "accountability" argument is thru the courts, otherwise we have the House abusing its authority.

1. The Senate refusing to consider evidence and move to acquit without considering anything is a violation of their oath of impartiality.

2. incorrect. The judiciary has no role in impeachment. The courts can not determine the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. See Nixon v the US 1993 (totally different Nixon).

1. "Hearsay evidence" is NOT evidence, period. That has nothing to do with "impartiality" or their "oath", its simply the law as defined by senate rules. The senate has the "sole power to try" so they make the senate rules, just like the House made their House rules.

2. I'm not saying that the USSC rules on Article-2. I'm saying that the USSC killed Article-2 when they took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. If you don't read the articles I link, you don't know what you're talking about. Try again, read the articles, then reply:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

 

[colfax_m]

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

Obstruction of Congress was one of the articles against Nixon. It exists because Congress says it exists. Trump is abusing his power by refusing to cooperate with Congress. This is legal remedy for Congress to exert their constitutional authority to investigate and oversee the executive.

1. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments and can exclude "hearsay" evidence. All it takes is 51 votes, which Mitch has.
2. You are wrong. The House is NOT the Executive's boss. They are co-equal branches of government. The Judiciary breaks ties as seen in the link I provided. Article-2 is VOID. Read these articles and provide links to disprove if you can, because your opinion isn't worth anything:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

We don’t know what Mitch has. They can exclude evidence if they want, but that’s mostly because they’re willing to violate their oaths to be impartial.

The judiciary has basically no role in impeachment. The power of impeachment is solely vested in the Congress. Implicit in this power is the ability to investigate and oversee the executive. The Constitution does so because without it we have a king, not a president. Trump is trying to make his administration above all accountability. That’s the opposite of what the founders intended.

1. Not allowing hearsay isn't violating any oath. Duh.
2. Stop tap-dancing around the point. We are discussing the constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC. The House can impeach Trump for his orange hair, but that doesn't make it constitutional. The House cannot charge Trump with "Obstruction of the House" when Trump has the right to litigate in the courts. The "accountability" argument is thru the courts, otherwise we have the House abusing its authority.

1. The Senate refusing to consider evidence and move to acquit without considering anything is a violation of their oath of impartiality.

2. incorrect. The judiciary has no role in impeachment. The courts can not determine the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. See Nixon v the US 1993 (totally different Nixon).

1. "Hearsay evidence" is NOT evidence, period. That has nothing to do with "impartiality" or their "oath", its simply the law as defined by senate rules. The senate has the "sole power to try" so they make the senate rules, just like the House made their House rules.

2. I'm not saying that the USSC rules on Article-2. I'm saying that the USSC killed Article-2 when they took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. If you don't read the articles I link, you don't know what you're talking about. Try again, read the articles, then reply:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

Hearsay can and very, very often is evidence. I think the Senate should apply the federal rules of evidence. That’s my opinion. They could refuse to evaluate any evidence for any reason, but if they do so as impartial defenders of Trump, as they are demonstrating many of them are doing, they will be in violation of their oath.

Alan Dershowitz is incorrect and you’re all over the map. You previously claimed this was about the “constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC.” There is no court that has any realm on determining the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. The Congress has plenary power. Dershowitz seems to think there is only one remedy to a president obstructing their investigation. He is being unnecessarily narrow and ignorant of other remedies the Constitution gives Congress.

 

[berg80]

The House impeached Trump on the "evidence" it had and passed two Articles:

Article-2 should be dismissed immediately because the USSC voided it when they took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. Trump does in-fact have the right to legal remedies and that is NOT "obstruction of the House". There is no such thing. That charge is moronic and an "Abuse of Power" by the House.
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

Article-1 can be litigated in trial, but all of the "hearsay" evidence needs to be thrown out per senate rules of evidence. So Article-1 can't be proven and Trump will be acquitted.

As Professor Turley said, "there was an abuse of power, by the House of Representatives".

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

Obstruction of Congress was one of the articles against Nixon. It exists because Congress says it exists. Trump is abusing his power by refusing to cooperate with Congress. This is legal remedy for Congress to exert their constitutional authority to investigate and oversee the executive.

1. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments and can exclude "hearsay" evidence. All it takes is 51 votes, which Mitch has.
2. You are wrong. The House is NOT the Executive's boss. They are co-equal branches of government. The Judiciary breaks ties as seen in the link I provided. Article-2 is VOID. Read these articles and provide links to disprove if you can, because your opinion isn't worth anything:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

We don’t know what Mitch has. They can exclude evidence if they want, but that’s mostly because they’re willing to violate their oaths to be impartial.

The judiciary has basically no role in impeachment. The power of impeachment is solely vested in the Congress. Implicit in this power is the ability to investigate and oversee the executive. The Constitution does so because without it we have a king, not a president. Trump is trying to make his administration above all accountability. That’s the opposite of what the founders intended.

Executive privilege is decided by the courts. Once again you wave your GED at us!

Executive privilege is beig falsely claimed by the Trump Administration for everything he does. Every "executive privilege" case that has gone to court, Trump has lost. Trump is using the courts in the same way he did when he was in business - to stall making any payments whatsoever, to beat down the opposition, and drag it out until the other side gives up, and does what he wants.

Donald Trump uses the courts as part of his strategy to bully and financially destroy those who challenge him. Just as in business, he's losing all of his cases, but the point isn't to win, it's to distract and destroy the other side.

To your point, at this time I believe what Trump's legal team has been claiming is not technically EP. Rather, it is the made up concept of absolute immunity. That claim was laughed out of court in the McGahn case. Naturally, it been appealed. Once the higher courts also rule in the House's favor, compelling McGahn's testimony (again), then the strategy will be to shift to the claim of EP so the case will have to be litigated all over again as to exactly what if any of McGahn's conversations with Trump are protected. And that my friends is the bottom line strategy. To tie these cases up in the courts for years.

 

[Nostra]

The House impeached Trump on the "evidence" it had and passed two Articles:

Article-2 should be dismissed immediately because the USSC voided it when they took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. Trump does in-fact have the right to legal remedies and that is NOT "obstruction of the House". There is no such thing. That charge is moronic and an "Abuse of Power" by the House.
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

Article-1 can be litigated in trial, but all of the "hearsay" evidence needs to be thrown out per senate rules of evidence. So Article-1 can't be proven and Trump will be acquitted.

As Professor Turley said, "there was an abuse of power, by the House of Representatives".

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

Obstruction of Congress was one of the articles against Nixon. It exists because Congress says it exists. Trump is abusing his power by refusing to cooperate with Congress. This is legal remedy for Congress to exert their constitutional authority to investigate and oversee the executive.

1. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments and can exclude "hearsay" evidence. All it takes is 51 votes, which Mitch has.
2. You are wrong. The House is NOT the Executive's boss. They are co-equal branches of government. The Judiciary breaks ties as seen in the link I provided. Article-2 is VOID. Read these articles and provide links to disprove if you can, because your opinion isn't worth anything:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

We don’t know what Mitch has. They can exclude evidence if they want, but that’s mostly because they’re willing to violate their oaths to be impartial.

The judiciary has basically no role in impeachment. The power of impeachment is solely vested in the Congress. Implicit in this power is the ability to investigate and oversee the executive. The Constitution does so because without it we have a king, not a president. Trump is trying to make his administration above all accountability. That’s the opposite of what the founders intended.

1. Not allowing hearsay isn't violating any oath. Duh.
2. Stop tap-dancing around the point. We are discussing the constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC. The House can impeach Trump for his orange hair, but that doesn't make it constitutional. The House cannot charge Trump with "Obstruction of the House" when Trump has the right to litigate in the courts. The "accountability" argument is thru the courts, otherwise we have the House abusing its authority.

1. The Senate refusing to consider evidence and move to acquit without considering anything is a violation of their oath of impartiality.

2. incorrect. The judiciary has no role in impeachment. The courts can not determine the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. See Nixon v the US 1993 (totally different Nixon).

The judiciary has no role in impeachment?

Who do you think presides over the trial, moron?

 

[Nostra]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

Parnas was arrested just as the Ukranian Scandal broke, and initially both Lev and Igor refused to cooperate with prosecutorsand refused to provide information to the government. But then Dumb Donald did his usual "I don't even know these guys" disavowel he does whenever any of his minions get caught doing illegal shit.

Lev's feelings were incredibly hurt. He thought he had a special relationship with Trump. When Trump dissed him on national television, Lev got mad, changed lawyers, and started cooperating with the feds. This evidence is the result of Lev's hissy fit that Donnie didn't defend him.

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

According to who? Schifferbrains?

He need to testify in the Senate under oath.

Call Lev's lawyer to verify it, dope.

Please explain how this can be verified, Chowderhead.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

Parnas was arrested just as the Ukranian Scandal broke, and initially both Lev and Igor refused to cooperate with prosecutorsand refused to provide information to the government. But then Dumb Donald did his usual "I don't even know these guys" disavowel he does whenever any of his minions get caught doing illegal shit.

Lev's feelings were incredibly hurt. He thought he had a special relationship with Trump. When Trump dissed him on national television, Lev got mad, changed lawyers, and started cooperating with the feds. This evidence is the result of Lev's hissy fit that Donnie didn't defend him.

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

According to who? Schifferbrains?

He need to testify in the Senate under oath.

Call Lev's lawyer to verify it, dope.

Democrats are the ones making the claim, it's up to them to prove that claim....

They made no claim, dope.
They informed the media where the documents came from. You not believing them is not their problem.

Certainly Schiff does not need to testify to verify the veracity of those documents.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

Parnas was arrested just as the Ukranian Scandal broke, and initially both Lev and Igor refused to cooperate with prosecutorsand refused to provide information to the government. But then Dumb Donald did his usual "I don't even know these guys" disavowel he does whenever any of his minions get caught doing illegal shit.

Lev's feelings were incredibly hurt. He thought he had a special relationship with Trump. When Trump dissed him on national television, Lev got mad, changed lawyers, and started cooperating with the feds. This evidence is the result of Lev's hissy fit that Donnie didn't defend him.

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

According to who? Schifferbrains?

He need to testify in the Senate under oath.

Call Lev's lawyer to verify it, dope.

Please explain how this can be verified, Chowderhead.

By Parnas himself, dope.
Call him to testify and explain.

 

[kyzr]

1. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments and can exclude "hearsay" evidence. All it takes is 51 votes, which Mitch has.
2. You are wrong. The House is NOT the Executive's boss. They are co-equal branches of government. The Judiciary breaks ties as seen in the link I provided. Article-2 is VOID. Read these articles and provide links to disprove if you can, because your opinion isn't worth anything:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

We don’t know what Mitch has. They can exclude evidence if they want, but that’s mostly because they’re willing to violate their oaths to be impartial.

The judiciary has basically no role in impeachment. The power of impeachment is solely vested in the Congress. Implicit in this power is the ability to investigate and oversee the executive. The Constitution does so because without it we have a king, not a president. Trump is trying to make his administration above all accountability. That’s the opposite of what the founders intended.

1. Not allowing hearsay isn't violating any oath. Duh.
2. Stop tap-dancing around the point. We are discussing the constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC. The House can impeach Trump for his orange hair, but that doesn't make it constitutional. The House cannot charge Trump with "Obstruction of the House" when Trump has the right to litigate in the courts. The "accountability" argument is thru the courts, otherwise we have the House abusing its authority.

1. The Senate refusing to consider evidence and move to acquit without considering anything is a violation of their oath of impartiality.

2. incorrect. The judiciary has no role in impeachment. The courts can not determine the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. See Nixon v the US 1993 (totally different Nixon).

1. "Hearsay evidence" is NOT evidence, period. That has nothing to do with "impartiality" or their "oath", its simply the law as defined by senate rules. The senate has the "sole power to try" so they make the senate rules, just like the House made their House rules.

2. I'm not saying that the USSC rules on Article-2. I'm saying that the USSC killed Article-2 when they took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. If you don't read the articles I link, you don't know what you're talking about. Try again, read the articles, then reply:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

Hearsay can and very, very often is evidence. I think the Senate should apply the federal rules of evidence. That’s my opinion. They could refuse to evaluate any evidence for any reason, but if they do so as impartial defenders of Trump, as they are demonstrating many of them are doing, they will be in violation of their oath.

Alan Dershowitz is incorrect and you’re all over the map. You previously claimed this was about the “constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC.” There is no court that has any realm on determining the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. The Congress has plenary power. Dershowitz seems to think there is only one remedy to a president obstructing their investigation. He is being unnecessarily narrow and ignorant of other remedies the Constitution gives Congress.

1. Agree "hearsay" can be evidence, if allowed. However, it can be excluded legitimately, which you seem not to accept.

2. Not sure by what authority you presume to call Dershowitz wrong, or by what rationale', he my be on Trump's team, and was a Harvard law professor??? My contention is that even though the House can impeach for any reason, constitutional or not, a crime or not, the senate can see thru the partisan bullshit and acquit. Nancy isn't fooling anyone with her partisan charade.

 

[colfax_m]

We don’t know what Mitch has. They can exclude evidence if they want, but that’s mostly because they’re willing to violate their oaths to be impartial.

The judiciary has basically no role in impeachment. The power of impeachment is solely vested in the Congress. Implicit in this power is the ability to investigate and oversee the executive. The Constitution does so because without it we have a king, not a president. Trump is trying to make his administration above all accountability. That’s the opposite of what the founders intended.

1. Not allowing hearsay isn't violating any oath. Duh.
2. Stop tap-dancing around the point. We are discussing the constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC. The House can impeach Trump for his orange hair, but that doesn't make it constitutional. The House cannot charge Trump with "Obstruction of the House" when Trump has the right to litigate in the courts. The "accountability" argument is thru the courts, otherwise we have the House abusing its authority.

1. The Senate refusing to consider evidence and move to acquit without considering anything is a violation of their oath of impartiality.

2. incorrect. The judiciary has no role in impeachment. The courts can not determine the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. See Nixon v the US 1993 (totally different Nixon).

1. "Hearsay evidence" is NOT evidence, period. That has nothing to do with "impartiality" or their "oath", its simply the law as defined by senate rules. The senate has the "sole power to try" so they make the senate rules, just like the House made their House rules.

2. I'm not saying that the USSC rules on Article-2. I'm saying that the USSC killed Article-2 when they took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. If you don't read the articles I link, you don't know what you're talking about. Try again, read the articles, then reply:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

Hearsay can and very, very often is evidence. I think the Senate should apply the federal rules of evidence. That’s my opinion. They could refuse to evaluate any evidence for any reason, but if they do so as impartial defenders of Trump, as they are demonstrating many of them are doing, they will be in violation of their oath.

Alan Dershowitz is incorrect and you’re all over the map. You previously claimed this was about the “constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC.” There is no court that has any realm on determining the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. The Congress has plenary power. Dershowitz seems to think there is only one remedy to a president obstructing their investigation. He is being unnecessarily narrow and ignorant of other remedies the Constitution gives Congress.

1. Agree "hearsay" can be evidence, if allowed. However, it can be excluded legitimately, which you seem not to accept.

2. Not sure by what authority you presume to call Dershowitz wrong, he my be on Trump's team, and was a Harvard law professor??? My contention is that even though the House can impeach for any reason, constitutional or not, a crime or not, the senate can see thru the bullshit and acquit if they deem fit.

I never stated in any conclusive fashion that hearsay is always allowed. You, however, have stated it cannot be considered evidence.

I can call Dershowitz wrong if I want. It’s a free country. He’s made a career at help rich and famous people evade the consequences of their actions. He’s doing it again. If all you have is an appeal to authority, I guess you’ve run out of arguments.

The Senate can’t see through anything. The Republicans firmly have their eyes shut and trying to prevent having to see any evidence against Trump. They’re operating out of a desire to remain ignorant.

 

[kyzr]

1. Not allowing hearsay isn't violating any oath. Duh.
2. Stop tap-dancing around the point. We are discussing the constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC. The House can impeach Trump for his orange hair, but that doesn't make it constitutional. The House cannot charge Trump with "Obstruction of the House" when Trump has the right to litigate in the courts. The "accountability" argument is thru the courts, otherwise we have the House abusing its authority.

1. The Senate refusing to consider evidence and move to acquit without considering anything is a violation of their oath of impartiality.

2. incorrect. The judiciary has no role in impeachment. The courts can not determine the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. See Nixon v the US 1993 (totally different Nixon).

1. "Hearsay evidence" is NOT evidence, period. That has nothing to do with "impartiality" or their "oath", its simply the law as defined by senate rules. The senate has the "sole power to try" so they make the senate rules, just like the House made their House rules.

2. I'm not saying that the USSC rules on Article-2. I'm saying that the USSC killed Article-2 when they took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. If you don't read the articles I link, you don't know what you're talking about. Try again, read the articles, then reply:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

Hearsay can and very, very often is evidence. I think the Senate should apply the federal rules of evidence. That’s my opinion. They could refuse to evaluate any evidence for any reason, but if they do so as impartial defenders of Trump, as they are demonstrating many of them are doing, they will be in violation of their oath.

Alan Dershowitz is incorrect and you’re all over the map. You previously claimed this was about the “constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC.” There is no court that has any realm on determining the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. The Congress has plenary power. Dershowitz seems to think there is only one remedy to a president obstructing their investigation. He is being unnecessarily narrow and ignorant of other remedies the Constitution gives Congress.

1. Agree "hearsay" can be evidence, if allowed. However, it can be excluded legitimately, which you seem not to accept.

2. Not sure by what authority you presume to call Dershowitz wrong, he my be on Trump's team, and was a Harvard law professor??? My contention is that even though the House can impeach for any reason, constitutional or not, a crime or not, the senate can see thru the bullshit and acquit if they deem fit.

I never stated in any conclusive fashion that hearsay is always allowed. You, however, have stated it cannot be considered evidence.

I can call Dershowitz wrong if I want. It’s a free country. He’s made a career at help rich and famous people evade the consequences of their actions. He’s doing it again. If all you have is an appeal to authority, I guess you’ve run out of arguments.

The Senate can’t see through anything. The Republicans firmly have their eyes shut and trying to prevent having to see any evidence against Trump. They’re operating out of a desire to remain ignorant.

1. I'm assuming that the senate votes to exclude "all hearsay evidence". That basically removes Article-1 and the "abuse of power" claim.

2. You can call Dershowitz wrong, but most senators would value his opinion over yours. If you read both articles you see that the president does have the constitutional right to take the House subpoenas to court, and that is NOT IMPEACHABLE, it is NOT "obstruction of the House". Article 2 is DOA.

 

[berg80]

"Hearsay evidence" is NOT evidence, period.

How you wish that were so.

You folks are just going to have to make up your minds. Is the Senate proceeding a legal trial or a political exercise? If the latter hearsay..........especially that which is corroborated by multiple witness testimony...........should absolutely be considered when deciding on Trump's guilt.

 

[Flash]

My god these Democrats are stupid assholes. The scum of this country.

Shame on them!

An impeachment with a strict partisan vote is not a legitimate impeachment but nothing more than Democrat Dirty Tricks.

The shitheads can't win the Presidency on their disastrous socialist policies so they are doing dirty trick and it is despicable.

 

[Nostra]

If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

Parnas was arrested just as the Ukranian Scandal broke, and initially both Lev and Igor refused to cooperate with prosecutorsand refused to provide information to the government. But then Dumb Donald did his usual "I don't even know these guys" disavowel he does whenever any of his minions get caught doing illegal shit.

Lev's feelings were incredibly hurt. He thought he had a special relationship with Trump. When Trump dissed him on national television, Lev got mad, changed lawyers, and started cooperating with the feds. This evidence is the result of Lev's hissy fit that Donnie didn't defend him.

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

According to who? Schifferbrains?

He need to testify in the Senate under oath.

Call Lev's lawyer to verify it, dope.

Please explain how this can be verified, Chowderhead.

By Parnas himself, dope.
Call him to testify and explain.

What would you like that criminal to say?

 

[colfax_m]

1. The Senate refusing to consider evidence and move to acquit without considering anything is a violation of their oath of impartiality.

2. incorrect. The judiciary has no role in impeachment. The courts can not determine the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. See Nixon v the US 1993 (totally different Nixon).

1. "Hearsay evidence" is NOT evidence, period. That has nothing to do with "impartiality" or their "oath", its simply the law as defined by senate rules. The senate has the "sole power to try" so they make the senate rules, just like the House made their House rules.

2. I'm not saying that the USSC rules on Article-2. I'm saying that the USSC killed Article-2 when they took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. If you don't read the articles I link, you don't know what you're talking about. Try again, read the articles, then reply:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

Hearsay can and very, very often is evidence. I think the Senate should apply the federal rules of evidence. That’s my opinion. They could refuse to evaluate any evidence for any reason, but if they do so as impartial defenders of Trump, as they are demonstrating many of them are doing, they will be in violation of their oath.

Alan Dershowitz is incorrect and you’re all over the map. You previously claimed this was about the “constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC.” There is no court that has any realm on determining the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. The Congress has plenary power. Dershowitz seems to think there is only one remedy to a president obstructing their investigation. He is being unnecessarily narrow and ignorant of other remedies the Constitution gives Congress.

1. Agree "hearsay" can be evidence, if allowed. However, it can be excluded legitimately, which you seem not to accept.

2. Not sure by what authority you presume to call Dershowitz wrong, he my be on Trump's team, and was a Harvard law professor??? My contention is that even though the House can impeach for any reason, constitutional or not, a crime or not, the senate can see thru the bullshit and acquit if they deem fit.

I never stated in any conclusive fashion that hearsay is always allowed. You, however, have stated it cannot be considered evidence.

I can call Dershowitz wrong if I want. It’s a free country. He’s made a career at help rich and famous people evade the consequences of their actions. He’s doing it again. If all you have is an appeal to authority, I guess you’ve run out of arguments.

The Senate can’t see through anything. The Republicans firmly have their eyes shut and trying to prevent having to see any evidence against Trump. They’re operating out of a desire to remain ignorant.

1. I'm assuming that the senate votes to exclude "all hearsay evidence". That basically removes Article-1 and the "abuse of power" claim.

2. You can call Dershowitz wrong, but most senators would value his opinion over yours. If you read both articles you see that the president does have the constitutional right to take the House subpoenas to court, and that is NOT IMPEACHABLE, it is NOT "obstruction of the House". Article 2 is DOA.

They can vote to remove all hearsay evidence if they choose. Doing so would be a violation of their oath of impartiality.

Dershowitz helped Epstein avoid paying for his actions. He got OJ off the hook for murder. Tell me why they should listen to him.

Show me where the Constitution says that Trump can fight subpoenas in court because I can show you where the Constitution says they can impeach him.

 

[BluesLegend]

So? I have it on official motel-6 letterhead that hillary eats babies for breakfast!

Have it tested, it probably has Bill's DNA on it.

 

[Nostra]

1. "Hearsay evidence" is NOT evidence, period. That has nothing to do with "impartiality" or their "oath", its simply the law as defined by senate rules. The senate has the "sole power to try" so they make the senate rules, just like the House made their House rules.

2. I'm not saying that the USSC rules on Article-2. I'm saying that the USSC killed Article-2 when they took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. If you don't read the articles I link, you don't know what you're talking about. Try again, read the articles, then reply:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

Hearsay can and very, very often is evidence. I think the Senate should apply the federal rules of evidence. That’s my opinion. They could refuse to evaluate any evidence for any reason, but if they do so as impartial defenders of Trump, as they are demonstrating many of them are doing, they will be in violation of their oath.

Alan Dershowitz is incorrect and you’re all over the map. You previously claimed this was about the “constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC.” There is no court that has any realm on determining the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. The Congress has plenary power. Dershowitz seems to think there is only one remedy to a president obstructing their investigation. He is being unnecessarily narrow and ignorant of other remedies the Constitution gives Congress.

1. Agree "hearsay" can be evidence, if allowed. However, it can be excluded legitimately, which you seem not to accept.

2. Not sure by what authority you presume to call Dershowitz wrong, he my be on Trump's team, and was a Harvard law professor??? My contention is that even though the House can impeach for any reason, constitutional or not, a crime or not, the senate can see thru the bullshit and acquit if they deem fit.

I never stated in any conclusive fashion that hearsay is always allowed. You, however, have stated it cannot be considered evidence.

I can call Dershowitz wrong if I want. It’s a free country. He’s made a career at help rich and famous people evade the consequences of their actions. He’s doing it again. If all you have is an appeal to authority, I guess you’ve run out of arguments.

The Senate can’t see through anything. The Republicans firmly have their eyes shut and trying to prevent having to see any evidence against Trump. They’re operating out of a desire to remain ignorant.

1. I'm assuming that the senate votes to exclude "all hearsay evidence". That basically removes Article-1 and the "abuse of power" claim.

2. You can call Dershowitz wrong, but most senators would value his opinion over yours. If you read both articles you see that the president does have the constitutional right to take the House subpoenas to court, and that is NOT IMPEACHABLE, it is NOT "obstruction of the House". Article 2 is DOA.

They can vote to remove all hearsay evidence if they choose. Doing so would be a violation of their oath of impartiality.

Dershowitz helped Epstein avoid paying for his actions. He got OJ off the hook for murder. Tell me why they should listen to him.

Show me where the Constitution says that Trump can fight subpoenas in court because I can show you where the Constitution says they can impeach him.

Doing so would be a violation of their oath of impartiality.

How? Be specific. You clowns have been wailing about this 'oath of impartiality' ever since this clusterfuck blew up in Nazi's face.

Show me where the Constitution says that Trump can fight subpoenas in court because I can show you where the Constitution says they can impeach him.

It's called due process. The President has the same rights as any other citizen, Dumbfuck.

 

[berg80]

An impeachment with a strict partisan vote is not a legitimate impeachment

What a silly thing to say. Repubs didn't refuse to vote for impeachment based on a lack of evidence. They refused to vote for impeachment in spite of a mountain of incriminating evidence. Why? Because they are simpering cowards who have sold their souls in the name of Trumpery.
Has any witness testimony or any other shred of evidence shown Trump is innocent of the charges in the AoI? No.