House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment

[Osiris-ODS]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sonland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sonland saying this from his own lips:

Republicans: None of the witnesses have direct first hand knowledge.

Dems: So let’s talk to witnesses with direct first hand knowledge.

Republicans: No.

You're conflating apples and oranges. As a matter of proper legal evidentiary predicate, the testimony given to date, other than Sonland, is inadmissible in a federal proceeding under Rule 802. It is an entirely separate point that even if, arguendo, the testimony of people like Bill Taylor were sufficient to establish the position being advanced by Democrats, it still does not raise a valid impeachable offense warranting removal from office under Article II, Section IV of the Constitution.

 

[kyzr]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're arguing what - the witnesses aren't adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukrainian President.

I can defend Trump's actions to the extent that Professor Turley stated that these impeachment Articles are "an abuse of power", by the House.
I'm going after process because Trump does not deserve to be impeached. There were technically no crimes or impeachable offenses.

Trump crossed a line going for oppo research, but it should not be an impeachable offense. That was not a crime, Ukraine got the money and did not do any favors for Trump. By comparison, Hillary actually paid Russians to create the Steele Dossier full of lies about Trump, and that was okay, didn't even make Mueller's radar during the investigation into Russian interference in 2016.

The call transcript is not impeachable. Sondland cannot provide any direct evidence on Trump, he "presumed" stuff. What he actually heard was "I want nothing". Vindland and Volker didn't have any direct evidence either, they can just agree with the transcript.
John Bolton is bound by "Executive Privilege" so ask away.
Lev Parnas never spoke directly with Trump, so no real evidence.

Article-1 is dead due to lack of evidence. Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
Article-2 is dead because the USSC said that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, aka "due process".

 

[kyzr]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding":
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

 

[colfax_m]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sonland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sonland saying this from his own lips:

Republicans: None of the witnesses have direct first hand knowledge.

Dems: So let’s talk to witnesses with direct first hand knowledge.

Republicans: No.

You're conflating apples and oranges. As a matter of proper legal evidentiary predicate, the testimony given to date, other than Sonland, is inadmissible in a federal proceeding under Rule 802. It is an entirely separate point that even if, arguendo, the testimony of people like Bill Taylor were sufficient to establish the position being advanced by Democrats, it still does not raise a valid impeachable offense warranting removal from office under Article II, Section IV of the Constitution.

I don’t know if you listened to the testimony but very little of the testimony given actually was hearsay. Much of it generated circumstantial evidence against Trump but very little was actually hearsay. If the other witnesses don’t testify, much of what is hearsay is allowable under rule 804, witness not available.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

If only it were true...

 

[Osiris-ODS]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

Thank you. I also loved the last exchange in that video:

Sonland: "Second thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that I talked to."

Jordan: "We got that" (nodding and smiling)

 

[Nostra]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

The transcript vindicates Trump, as does the President of the Ukraine.

Sondland changed his story. Vindland, Volker, and Yaovanavich were nothing but hearsay witnesses. Bolton and Parnas are not witnesses at all.

Want to try again?

 

[Osiris-ODS]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

If only it were true...

Oh good grief, don't be dense. Bill Taylor said himself it during his opening statement! Are you saying Bill Taylor was lying?

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're arguing what - the witnesses aren't adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukrainian President.

I can defend Trump's actions to the extent that Professor Turley stated that these impeachment Articles are "an abuse of power", by the House.
I'm going after process because Trump does not deserve to be impeached. There were technically no crimes or impeachable offenses.

Trump crossed a line going for oppo research, but it should not be an impeachable offense. That was not a crime, Ukraine got the money and did not do any favors for Trump. By comparison, Hillary actually paid Russians to create the Steele Dossier full of lies about Trump, and that was okay, didn't even make Mueller's radar during the investigation into Russian interference in 2016.

The call transcript is not impeachable. Sondland cannot provide any direct evidence on Trump, he "presumed" stuff. What he actually heard was "I want nothing". Vindland and Volker didn't have any direct evidence either, they can just agree with the transcript.
John Bolton is bound by "Executive Privilege" so ask away.
Lev Parnas never spoke directly with Trump, so no real evidence.

Article-1 is dead due to lack of evidence. Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
Article-2 is dead because the USSC said that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, aka "due process".

None of your purported legal arguments hold water, especially your argument that since the extortion plan failed and the Ukraine CB got the money, no harm, no foul.

1. Asking the Ukraine for ANYTHING in exchange for the military aid, is illegal. Trump does not have the legal authority to withhold the aid.

The desperate comparison to Hillary isn’t comparable. Hillary wasn’t the President of the United States asking for a foreign government for dirt on her opponents in advance of the election, in exchange for foreign aid to fight a hot war.

Again Trump illegally asked a foreign country to investigate his opposition political party for dirt he could use to help Russia. Why is Trump trying to clear Russia in the DNC hacking.

You’re arguing process questions on the impeachment of a President who is spending taxpayer money to investigate Russian propaganda and proven conspiracy theories and jeopardizing the safety and security of your nation while so doing.

Tell me why you condone any of this?

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

The transcript vindicates Trump, as does the President of the Ukraine.

Sondland changed his story. Vindland, Volker, and Yaovanavich were nothing but hearsay witnesses. Bolton and Parnas are not witnesses at all.

Want to try again?

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

The transcript vindicates Trump, as does the President of the Ukraine.

Sondland changed his story. Vindland, Volker, and Yaovanavich were nothing but hearsay witnesses. Bolton and Parnas are not witnesses at all.

Want to try again?

Vindland was on the phone call. Volker was part of Sondland’s pressure campaign and Bolton was sending everyone to talk to lawyers.

Bolton resigned/was fired for his behaviour in these series of events. Two top officials of the Office of Budget Management refused to carry out Trumps orders and quit. Marie Yovanovitch was removed because she wouldn’t let Guliani do his dirty work.

And you’re covering your eyes and ears and pretending all of this never happened. The transcript alone says it did.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

If only it were true...

Oh good grief, don't be dense. Bill Taylor said himself it during his opening statement! Are you saying Bill Taylor was lying?

Bill Taylor said nothing of the sort in his statement. You can nit pick that Taylor heard about Sondland expressing a quid pro quo to Yermak through Morrison. Morrison recalls the same thing happening. And so does Sondland.

Is that what you’re referring to?

 

[Osiris-ODS]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're arguing what - the witnesses aren't adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukrainian President.

I can defend Trump's actions to the extent that Professor Turley stated that these impeachment Articles are "an abuse of power", by the House.
I'm going after process because Trump does not deserve to be impeached. There were technically no crimes or impeachable offenses.

Trump crossed a line going for oppo research, but it should not be an impeachable offense. That was not a crime, Ukraine got the money and did not do any favors for Trump. By comparison, Hillary actually paid Russians to create the Steele Dossier full of lies about Trump, and that was okay, didn't even make Mueller's radar during the investigation into Russian interference in 2016.

The call transcript is not impeachable. Sondland cannot provide any direct evidence on Trump, he "presumed" stuff. What he actually heard was "I want nothing". Vindland and Volker didn't have any direct evidence either, they can just agree with the transcript.
John Bolton is bound by "Executive Privilege" so ask away.
Lev Parnas never spoke directly with Trump, so no real evidence.

Article-1 is dead due to lack of evidence. Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
Article-2 is dead because the USSC said that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, aka "due process".

None of your purported legal arguments hold water, especially your argument that since the extortion plan failed and the Ukraine CB got the money, no harm, no foul.

1. Asking the Ukraine for ANYTHING in exchange for the military aid, is illegal. Trump does not have the legal authority to withhold the aid.

The desperate comparison to Hillary isn’t comparable. Hillary wasn’t the President of the United States asking for a foreign government for dirt on her opponents in advance of the election, in exchange for foreign aid to fight a hot war.

Again Trump illegally asked a foreign country to investigate his opposition political party for dirt he could use to help Russia. Why is Trump trying to clear Russia in the DNC hacking.

You’re arguing process questions on the impeachment of a President who is spending taxpayer money to investigate Russian propaganda and proven conspiracy theories and jeopardizing the safety and security of your nation while so doing.

Tell me why you condone any of this?

Again, you're making several rank assumptions in your post, none of which are supported by any admissible evidence, and in fact, was unequivocally contradicted by the only admissible testimony elicited during the House Impeachment proceeding--the testimony of Sonland. See post # 158.

 

[Nostra]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

The transcript vindicates Trump, as does the President of the Ukraine.

Sondland changed his story. Vindland, Volker, and Yaovanavich were nothing but hearsay witnesses. Bolton and Parnas are not witnesses at all.

Want to try again?

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

The transcript vindicates Trump, as does the President of the Ukraine.

Sondland changed his story. Vindland, Volker, and Yaovanavich were nothing but hearsay witnesses. Bolton and Parnas are not witnesses at all.

Want to try again?

Vindland was on the phone call. Volker was part of Sondland’s pressure campaign and Bolton was sending everyone to talk to lawyers.

Bolton resigned/was fired for his behaviour in these series of events. Two top officials of the Office of Budget Management refused to carry out Trumps orders and quit. Marie Yovanovitch was removed because she wouldn’t let Guliani do his dirty work.

And you’re covering your eyes and ears and pretending all of this never happened. The transcript alone says it did.

Got Vindland and Sondland mixed up. He was the only one on the call.

Bolton has not testified, so he isn't a witness.

So, the entire case is hearsay and what Vindland thought about the call. His thoughts do not override the transcript, which vindicates Trump.

You have a shit show that has turned into a clusterfuck.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

If only it were true...

Oh good grief, don't be dense. Bill Taylor said himself it during his opening statement! Are you saying Bill Taylor was lying?

Bill Taylor said nothing of the sort in his statement. You can nit pick that Taylor heard about Sondland expressing a quid pro quo to Yermak through Morrison. Morrison recalls the same thing happening. And so does Sondland.

Is that what you’re referring to?

Jumping Jiminy Christmas, talk about burying your head and ignoring what's right in front of you. In your own post, you confirmed what I stated:

You can nit pick that Taylor heard about Sondland expressing a quid pro quo to Yermak through Morrison.

Exactly.

As for Sonland--the only person who spoke with Trump about his intentions--he said no such thing. In fact, he testified it was only his assumption that the money was tied to an investigation, but when pressed about the basis for his "assumption," he specifically stated that Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

Here, from Sonland's own lips. What is so hard to understand about this???

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sonland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sonland saying this from his own lips:

Republicans: None of the witnesses have direct first hand knowledge.

Dems: So let’s talk to witnesses with direct first hand knowledge.

Republicans: No.

There is a reason they weren't called min the Huse. Dems can't have it both ways

 

[colfax_m]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

If only it were true...

Oh good grief, don't be dense. Bill Taylor said himself it during his opening statement! Are you saying Bill Taylor was lying?

Bill Taylor said nothing of the sort in his statement. You can nit pick that Taylor heard about Sondland expressing a quid pro quo to Yermak through Morrison. Morrison recalls the same thing happening. And so does Sondland.

Is that what you’re referring to?

Jumping Jiminy Christmas, talk about burying your head and ignoring what's right in front of you -- Sonland, the only person who spoke with Trump about his intentions, said no such thing. In fact, he said it was only his assumtion that the money was tied to an investigation, but when pressed about the basis for his "belief," he specifically answered that Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

Here, from Sonland's own lips. What is so hard to understand about this???

[/QUOTE]

You’re jumping around a lot, it’s hard to keep track. I thought you were talking about Morrison, why are you deflecting?

It’s circumstantial evidence, but when it all points in the same direction, then you have a case that can be prosecuted.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

If only it were true...

Oh good grief, don't be dense. Bill Taylor said himself it during his opening statement! Are you saying Bill Taylor was lying?

Bill Taylor said nothing of the sort in his statement. You can nit pick that Taylor heard about Sondland expressing a quid pro quo to Yermak through Morrison. Morrison recalls the same thing happening. And so does Sondland.

Is that what you’re referring to?

Jumping Jiminy Christmas, talk about burying your head and ignoring what's right in front of you -- Sonland, the only person who spoke with Trump about his intentions, said no such thing. In fact, he said it was only his assumtion that the money was tied to an investigation, but when pressed about the basis for his "belief," he specifically answered that Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

Here, from Sonland's own lips. What is so hard to understand about this???

You’re jumping around a lot, it’s hard to keep track. I thought you were talking about Morrison, why are you deflecting?

It’s circumstantial evidence, but when it all points in the same direction, then you have a case that can be prosecuted.

Sorry but it's not "circumstantial evidence." It's wholly inadmissible. I practice exclusively in federal court (including just prosecuting an appeal before the same Fifth Circuit panel that just decided the Obamacare appeal--judges Elrod, King and Englehardt--the day after the Obamacare oral argument), and I assure you that the so called "evidence" you guys are referring to is wholly inadmissible under Rule 802 (i.e., not "circumstantial evidence" as you suggest), and will be summarily overruled by Justice Roberts if the Dems try to advance it in the Senate trial.

Side note, the judges on that Fifth Circuit panel were some of the smartest, most shrewd jurists I've ever had the pleasure of appearing before in my practice to date. I will wager anything that Judge Elrod will be named to the Supreme Court if Trump is re-elected and a seat opens while he's in office. She was incredibly impressive, I can't compliment her enough. I couldn't believe how fast she was to pick up on highly complex points of law, even assisting her fellow jurists and opposing counsel get up to speed on the factual and legal issues. And this was the day after the Obamacare oral argument. Hold moly she is smart.

 

[colfax_m]

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

If only it were true...

Oh good grief, don't be dense. Bill Taylor said himself it during his opening statement! Are you saying Bill Taylor was lying?

Bill Taylor said nothing of the sort in his statement. You can nit pick that Taylor heard about Sondland expressing a quid pro quo to Yermak through Morrison. Morrison recalls the same thing happening. And so does Sondland.

Is that what you’re referring to?

Jumping Jiminy Christmas, talk about burying your head and ignoring what's right in front of you -- Sonland, the only person who spoke with Trump about his intentions, said no such thing. In fact, he said it was only his assumtion that the money was tied to an investigation, but when pressed about the basis for his "belief," he specifically answered that Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

Here, from Sonland's own lips. What is so hard to understand about this???

You’re jumping around a lot, it’s hard to keep track. I thought you were talking about Morrison, why are you deflecting?

It’s circumstantial evidence, but when it all points in the same direction, then you have a case that can be prosecuted.

Sorry but it's not "circumstantial evidence." It's wholly inadmissible. I practice exclusively in federal court (including just prosecuting an appeal before the same Fifth Circuit panel that just decided the Obamacare appeal--judges Elrod, King and Englehardt--the day after the Obamacare oral argument), and I assure you that the so called "evidence" you guys are referring to is wholly inadmissible under Rule 802 (i.e., not "circumstantial evidence" as you suggest), and will be summarily overruled by Justice Roberts if the Dems try to advance it in the Senate trial.

Side note, the judges on that Fifth Circuit panel were some of the smartest, most shrewd jurists I've ever had the pleasure of appearing before in my practice to date. I will wager anything that Judge Elrod will be named to the Supreme Court if Trump is re-elected and a seat opens while he's in office. She was incredibly impressive, I can't compliment her enough. I couldn't believe how fast she was to pick up on highly complex points of law, even assisting her fellow jurists and opposing counsel get up to speed on the factual and legal issues. And this was the day after the Obamacare oral argument. Hold moly she is smart.

So Sondland admits he told Yermak that US aid would flow if they opened an investigation into Biden.

Is that admissible or not?

 

[kyzr]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

Thank you. I also loved the last exchange in that video:

Sonland: "Second thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that I talked to."

Jordan: "We got that" (nodding and smiling)

Sondland was the dumbest fucking millionaire I ever saw, he had no clue WTF he was testifying to. The GOP congressmen did a great job unwinding his testimony.

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're arguing what - the witnesses aren't adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukrainian President.

I can defend Trump's actions to the extent that Professor Turley stated that these impeachment Articles are "an abuse of power", by the House.
I'm going after process because Trump does not deserve to be impeached. There were technically no crimes or impeachable offenses.

Trump crossed a line going for oppo research, but it should not be an impeachable offense. That was not a crime, Ukraine got the money and did not do any favors for Trump. By comparison, Hillary actually paid Russians to create the Steele Dossier full of lies about Trump, and that was okay, didn't even make Mueller's radar during the investigation into Russian interference in 2016.

The call transcript is not impeachable. Sondland cannot provide any direct evidence on Trump, he "presumed" stuff. What he actually heard was "I want nothing". Vindland and Volker didn't have any direct evidence either, they can just agree with the transcript.
John Bolton is bound by "Executive Privilege" so ask away.
Lev Parnas never spoke directly with Trump, so no real evidence.

Article-1 is dead due to lack of evidence. Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
Article-2 is dead because the USSC said that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, aka "due process".

None of your purported legal arguments hold water, especially your argument that since the extortion plan failed and the Ukraine CB got the money, no harm, no foul.

1. Asking the Ukraine for ANYTHING in exchange for the military aid, is illegal. Trump does not have the legal authority to withhold the aid.

The desperate comparison to Hillary isn’t comparable. Hillary wasn’t the President of the United States asking for a foreign government for dirt on her opponents in advance of the election, in exchange for foreign aid to fight a hot war.

Again Trump illegally asked a foreign country to investigate his opposition political party for dirt he could use to help Russia. Why is Trump trying to clear Russia in the DNC hacking.

You’re arguing process questions on the impeachment of a President who is spending taxpayer money to investigate Russian propaganda and proven conspiracy theories and jeopardizing the safety and security of your nation while so doing.

Tell me why you condone any of this?

Lets try this again...
1. There was no crime, period, full stop. There was no extortion, Trump asked Zelensky to have his guy work with Barr.
2. Trump has every right to withhold the military aid temporarily, its in the law, and he released it within the allotted window.
3. Oh please, prove Trump asked for "dirt" in exchange for aid, you can't, stop lying. Trump gave them Javelin anti-tank weapons when the democrats just sent "blankets", and the hot war ended in 2015, its been a sniper war since then.
4. Stop the shit with "helping" Russia too. Trump has them sanctioned. Obama was more "flexible" with Russia, not Trump.
5. The impeachment Articles are a joke and will be dismissed. Trump will be acquitted and re-elected. Enjoy the next 5 or so years.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

Thank you. I also loved the last exchange in that video:

Sonland: "Second thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that I talked to."

Jordan: "We got that" (nodding and smiling)

Sondland was the dumbest fucking millionaire I ever saw, he had no clue WTF he was testifying to. The GOP congressmen did a great job unwinding his testimony.

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.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're arguing what - the witnesses aren't adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukrainian President.

I can defend Trump's actions to the extent that Professor Turley stated that these impeachment Articles are "an abuse of power", by the House.
I'm going after process because Trump does not deserve to be impeached. There were technically no crimes or impeachable offenses.

Trump crossed a line going for oppo research, but it should not be an impeachable offense. That was not a crime, Ukraine got the money and did not do any favors for Trump. By comparison, Hillary actually paid Russians to create the Steele Dossier full of lies about Trump, and that was okay, didn't even make Mueller's radar during the investigation into Russian interference in 2016.

The call transcript is not impeachable. Sondland cannot provide any direct evidence on Trump, he "presumed" stuff. What he actually heard was "I want nothing". Vindland and Volker didn't have any direct evidence either, they can just agree with the transcript.
John Bolton is bound by "Executive Privilege" so ask away.
Lev Parnas never spoke directly with Trump, so no real evidence.

Article-1 is dead due to lack of evidence. Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
Article-2 is dead because the USSC said that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, aka "due process".

None of your purported legal arguments hold water, especially your argument that since the extortion plan failed and the Ukraine CB got the money, no harm, no foul.

1. Asking the Ukraine for ANYTHING in exchange for the military aid, is illegal. Trump does not have the legal authority to withhold the aid.

The desperate comparison to Hillary isn’t comparable. Hillary wasn’t the President of the United States asking for a foreign government for dirt on her opponents in advance of the election, in exchange for foreign aid to fight a hot war.

Again Trump illegally asked a foreign country to investigate his opposition political party for dirt he could use to help Russia. Why is Trump trying to clear Russia in the DNC hacking.

You’re arguing process questions on the impeachment of a President who is spending taxpayer money to investigate Russian propaganda and proven conspiracy theories and jeopardizing the safety and security of your nation while so doing.

Tell me why you condone any of this?

Lets try this again...
1. There was no crime, period, full stop. There was no extortion, Trump asked Zelensky to have his guy work with Barr.
2. Trump has every right to withhold the military aid temporarily, its in the law, and he released it within the allotted window.
3. Oh please, prove Trump asked for "dirt" in exchange for aid, you can't, stop lying. Trump gave them Javelin anti-tank weapons when the democrats just sent "blankets", and the hot war ended in 2015, its been a sniper war since then.
4. Stop the shit with "helping" Russia too. Trump has them sanctioned. Obama was more "flexible" with Russia, not Trump.
5. The impeachment Articles are a joke and will be dismissed. Trump will be acquitted and re-elected. Enjoy the next 5 or so years.

1. Trump never involved Barr. He may have said that but clearly didn’t mean it. He only involved Rudy.
2. The law does not say anything about a temporary hold. His actions were without any legal justification and their legality is highly questionable. He didn’t actually release it in the window. Many millions were never allocated because they didn’t have enough time. The administration was caught lying about this.
3. He didn’t give them javelins. He allowed them to buy them. It’s just a nit pick though. Either way, he demonstrated we aren’t a reliable partner.