Offical Impeachment Thread

[The Original Tree]

You may have thought the White House Spy - Fake Whistle Blower is Eric Ciaramella. You'd Be Wrong.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So, Marcelo, you agree that the Hunter Biden gig was fishy. Your issue is that you believe Trump held up aid until Ukraine investigated the fishy issue?

No, you can take your intentional stupidity, fold it into a triangle, and stick it up your ass.

Triggered? Why so bitter. This will not be the last debate you lose to me. Chill, Julio.

Your Tucker Carlson fanboy routine, "so, you agree..." doesn't deserve respect. It's not an argument, it's an insult to intelligence. You're welcome to keep it.

In you case there isn't anything to insult, Gomez.

Sure there is. You're a coward who has been ducking the question of the "deliverable" for days. I expressed an honest opinion, and you respond with your juvenile "so" bullshit, and some Spanish names. Stick it, gomer.

That wasn't me - LOL.

You admitted the Biden thing is fishy, the deliverable is the truth of what happened in 2016 and how Biden got that gig is my guess. Again, I am smart. Very smart. But I am not a mind reader. I don't see anything wrong with what DJT did. I bet prior presidents have done similar crap. This was in an open phone call. He was not hiding anything. Per usual, leftists like you make a mountain out of a mole hill. He should have been more direct, maybe".

DJT: Your country is very corrupt and my intelligence persons tell me that the whole Russia conspiracy started there in 2016. I have a hard time authorizing additional weaponry to a country that is corrupt. I understand you're trying to clean up the corruption. Would you please share with me what happened with Crowdstrike and how Hunter Biden got that board seat with Burisma? Why was the prosecutor fired?

I see ZERO wrong with this. NOTHING. He is not asking for the President of Ukraine to make shit up, he is asking for details on shit that actually happened.

I hope you understand this, Lopez.

 

[IM2]

Obstructing what? The corrupt democrat coup?

There has been no coup.

Correct, it is a failed coup.

So the democrats attempted to overthrow Trump in order to make Mike Pence president.

That's what Trump has told you.

Trump wasn't up for impeachment yet when the Democrats were talking about impeaching Pence as well.

This has nothing to do with penalties or wrongdoing, it has to do with Nazism. Democrats think they own this country, and always will. Only they get to decide on who the President is, not the people.

trump isn't up for impeachment now. everyone's all fked up about it. If he were, the Judiciary Committee would have it.

He's up.

 

[joaquinmiller]

No, you can take your intentional stupidity, fold it into a triangle, and stick it up your ass.

Triggered? Why so bitter. This will not be the last debate you lose to me. Chill, Julio.

Your Tucker Carlson fanboy routine, "so, you agree..." doesn't deserve respect. It's not an argument, it's an insult to intelligence. You're welcome to keep it.

In you case there isn't anything to insult, Gomez.

Sure there is. You're a coward who has been ducking the question of the "deliverable" for days. I expressed an honest opinion, and you respond with your juvenile "so" bullshit, and some Spanish names. Stick it, gomer.

That wasn't me - LOL.

You admitted the Biden thing is fishy, the deliverable is the truth of what happened in 2016 and how Biden got that gig is my guess. Again, I am smart. Very smart. But I am not a mind reader. I don't see anything wrong with what DJT did. I bet prior presidents have done similar crap. This was in an open phone call. He was not hiding anything. Per usual, leftists like you make a mountain out of a mole hill. He should have been more direct, maybe".

DJT: Your country is very corrupt and my intelligence persons tell me that the whole Russia conspiracy started there in 2016. I have a hard time authorizing additional weaponry to a country that is corrupt. I understand you're trying to clean up the corruption. Would you please share with me what happened with Crowdstrike and how Hunter Biden got that board seat with Burisma? Why was the prosecutor fired?

I see ZERO wrong with this. NOTHING. He is not asking for the President of Ukraine to make shit up, he is asking for details on shit that actually happened.

I hope you understand this, Lopez.

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

 

[IM2]

Lying fucking moron...

• The Articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon

Article II
ARTICLE II, ABUSE OF POWER. (Approved 28-10)

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice in the conduct of lawful inquiries, of contravening the law of governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.​

• H. Rept. 105-830 - IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

D. Article IV--Abuse of Power

Article IV - 1
1. The President abused his power by refusing and failing to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him by the Committee​

Quote the statute titled "Abuse of power." The fact that a bunch of Dims made up a crime means nothing.

There doesn't have to be a statute, ya lying fucking moron.

Have you learned nothing at all??

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

Wrong. For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute. Otherwise it's just a whine.

Trump has committed crimes but you don't have to commit a crime to be fired from your job.

No, but they can only fire you if you did something against company policy, or something dangerous that would make them liable. Coming in late for a month is not against the law, but the company requires you to be there on time every day with some exceptions.

And Trump has violated company policy.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

sure you do. that's why you're so confused, no one testified yesterday.

Of course not. Do you bet on centaur races too?

I bet on sure things. Trump was a sure thing. And I bet on him and won. how fking sweet huh?

So not only do you bet on centaur races, you bet on unicorns. Trump is president by fluke, so you didn't bet on a sure thing. It's apparent why you voted for Trump.

/——-/ The Electoral College is a fluke? Since when, 1780?

Since only 5 presidents out of 55 elections lost the popular vote and ends up president.

So most of the time it works fine. Why are you complaining again?

 

[Flopper]

So far it is just one massive hearsay slander while the people in question are kept tied and gagged in another room without so much as the chance to defend themselves much less air their side!

Wow, try reading the transcripts. These are people that were involved & know first hand about Trump's extortion demands.

Bullshit. Neither was there. All they had to offer was their opinions and feelings of what they claim others told them.

There is no hearsay evidence. This is not a criminal trial. It's an impeachment inquiry, and is absolutely allowed to be entered into the record.

Ambassador Sondland, who was on the phone call will be corroborating Ambassador Taylors Testimony next week.

Sondland donated $1 million to Trumps campaign, and for that reason was made an Ambassador.

With that information entered into the record, Ol' Gym Jordan is going to look really fucking stupid when he tries to paint Sondland as a never trumper huh?

And anyone that tries to imply he's a DNC witness will come off looking even more stupid than that huh?

See you at the next hearing.

Yes, it is hearsay. It doesn't matter what you call the proceedings, when you are giving your opinion and feelings about what others told you they heard it is the very definition of hearsay.

FOR THE RECORD, let us define Hearsay as evidence provided that you are not first person to, did not experience yourself but are only privy to 2nd hand from another party which you are trusting as accurate then relaying to the court, which then must be sifted through and weighed to determine its credibility, if any.

Since you have no absolute way yourself of knowing the claims are accurate and are taking them purely on faith, then it is at best a 4X greater leap of faith for the court to accept them twice removed.

No president can ever be impeached on such specious grounds for it would invite in the future anyone to claim anything any time someone wanted to remove a president simply because they didn't like him or agree with his policies. A place America does not want to go if it is to remain above a bananas republic.

Almost all congressional investigations begin with she said, he said. Then she testifies and he testifies, confirming bits and pieces. The people that are actual privy to exactly what happened are being shielded by executive privilege or have flatly refused to testify, for now. If Trump actually has done a good job in picking people that will be loyal to very end, then he may have people that will lie for him and thus squash the impeachment.

 

[IM2]

There has been no coup.

Correct, it is a failed coup.

So the democrats attempted to overthrow Trump in order to make Mike Pence president.

That's what Trump has told you.

Trump wasn't up for impeachment yet when the Democrats were talking about impeaching Pence as well.

This has nothing to do with penalties or wrongdoing, it has to do with Nazism. Democrats think they own this country, and always will. Only they get to decide on who the President is, not the people.

trump isn't up for impeachment now. everyone's all fked up about it. If he were, the Judiciary Committee would have it.

At the very least, Piglosi would be conducting it. Seems like she wants to distance herself from this farce. She will regret it as the first woman Speaker who lost her position twice in her career.

That's not what is happening.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Triggered? Why so bitter. This will not be the last debate you lose to me. Chill, Julio.

Your Tucker Carlson fanboy routine, "so, you agree..." doesn't deserve respect. It's not an argument, it's an insult to intelligence. You're welcome to keep it.

In you case there isn't anything to insult, Gomez.

Sure there is. You're a coward who has been ducking the question of the "deliverable" for days. I expressed an honest opinion, and you respond with your juvenile "so" bullshit, and some Spanish names. Stick it, gomer.

That wasn't me - LOL.

You admitted the Biden thing is fishy, the deliverable is the truth of what happened in 2016 and how Biden got that gig is my guess. Again, I am smart. Very smart. But I am not a mind reader. I don't see anything wrong with what DJT did. I bet prior presidents have done similar crap. This was in an open phone call. He was not hiding anything. Per usual, leftists like you make a mountain out of a mole hill. He should have been more direct, maybe".

DJT: Your country is very corrupt and my intelligence persons tell me that the whole Russia conspiracy started there in 2016. I have a hard time authorizing additional weaponry to a country that is corrupt. I understand you're trying to clean up the corruption. Would you please share with me what happened with Crowdstrike and how Hunter Biden got that board seat with Burisma? Why was the prosecutor fired?

I see ZERO wrong with this. NOTHING. He is not asking for the President of Ukraine to make shit up, he is asking for details on shit that actually happened.

I hope you understand this, Lopez.

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

 

[IM2]

Wow, try reading the transcripts. These are people that were involved & know first hand about Trump's extortion demands.

Bullshit. Neither was there. All they had to offer was their opinions and feelings of what they claim others told them.

There is no hearsay evidence. This is not a criminal trial. It's an impeachment inquiry, and is absolutely allowed to be entered into the record.

Ambassador Sondland, who was on the phone call will be corroborating Ambassador Taylors Testimony next week.

Sondland donated $1 million to Trumps campaign, and for that reason was made an Ambassador.

With that information entered into the record, Ol' Gym Jordan is going to look really fucking stupid when he tries to paint Sondland as a never trumper huh?

And anyone that tries to imply he's a DNC witness will come off looking even more stupid than that huh?

See you at the next hearing.

Yes, it is hearsay. It doesn't matter what you call the proceedings, when you are giving your opinion and feelings about what others told you they heard it is the very definition of hearsay.

FOR THE RECORD, let us define Hearsay as evidence provided that you are not first person to, did not experience yourself but are only privy to 2nd hand from another party which you are trusting as accurate then relaying to the court, which then must be sifted through and weighed to determine its credibility, if any.

Since you have no absolute way yourself of knowing the claims are accurate and are taking them purely on faith, then it is at best a 4X greater leap of faith for the court to accept them twice removed.

No president can ever be impeached on such specious grounds for it would invite in the future anyone to claim anything any time someone wanted to remove a president simply because they didn't like him or agree with his policies. A place America does not want to go if it is to remain above a bananas republic.

Almost all congressional investigations begin with she said, he said. Then she testifies and he testifies, confirming bits and pieces. The people that are actual privy to exactly what happened are being shielded by executive privilege or have flatly refused to testify, for now. If Trump actually has done a good job in picking people that will be loyal to very end, then he may have people that will lie for him and thus squash the impeachment.

It's probably too late for that. Lying to congress is a prison term.

 

[Nostra]

Hey Dimwingers, I hate to break this to ya (not really), but yesterday was a complete clusterfuck for the blithering bug-eyed idiot Schifferbrains and the Dimwinger party.

And those were his STAR WITNESSES. It's all down hill from here.

You already lost the American public with that debacle yesterday, and no amount of whining, crying, and spinning on this board is gonna change that.

 

[The Original Tree]

Bullshit. Neither was there. All they had to offer was their opinions and feelings of what they claim others told them.

There is no hearsay evidence. This is not a criminal trial. It's an impeachment inquiry, and is absolutely allowed to be entered into the record.

Ambassador Sondland, who was on the phone call will be corroborating Ambassador Taylors Testimony next week.

Sondland donated $1 million to Trumps campaign, and for that reason was made an Ambassador.

With that information entered into the record, Ol' Gym Jordan is going to look really fucking stupid when he tries to paint Sondland as a never trumper huh?

And anyone that tries to imply he's a DNC witness will come off looking even more stupid than that huh?

See you at the next hearing.

Yes, it is hearsay. It doesn't matter what you call the proceedings, when you are giving your opinion and feelings about what others told you they heard it is the very definition of hearsay.

FOR THE RECORD, let us define Hearsay as evidence provided that you are not first person to, did not experience yourself but are only privy to 2nd hand from another party which you are trusting as accurate then relaying to the court, which then must be sifted through and weighed to determine its credibility, if any.

Since you have no absolute way yourself of knowing the claims are accurate and are taking them purely on faith, then it is at best a 4X greater leap of faith for the court to accept them twice removed.

No president can ever be impeached on such specious grounds for it would invite in the future anyone to claim anything any time someone wanted to remove a president simply because they didn't like him or agree with his policies. A place America does not want to go if it is to remain above a bananas republic.

Almost all congressional investigations begin with she said, he said. Then she testifies and he testifies, confirming bits and pieces. The people that are actual privy to exactly what happened are being shielded by executive privilege or have flatly refused to testify, for now. If Trump actually has done a good job in picking people that will be loyal to very end, then he may have people that will lie for him and thus squash the impeachment.

It's probably too late for that. Lying to congress is a prison term.

And now a word from our Sponsor, The King Of Whoopi, The Master of Mayhem, The White House Spy, and Fake Whistle Blower, and Adam Schiff's Hairy Man Butt Lover, Eric Ciaramella.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Your Tucker Carlson fanboy routine, "so, you agree..." doesn't deserve respect. It's not an argument, it's an insult to intelligence. You're welcome to keep it.

In you case there isn't anything to insult, Gomez.

Sure there is. You're a coward who has been ducking the question of the "deliverable" for days. I expressed an honest opinion, and you respond with your juvenile "so" bullshit, and some Spanish names. Stick it, gomer.

That wasn't me - LOL.

You admitted the Biden thing is fishy, the deliverable is the truth of what happened in 2016 and how Biden got that gig is my guess. Again, I am smart. Very smart. But I am not a mind reader. I don't see anything wrong with what DJT did. I bet prior presidents have done similar crap. This was in an open phone call. He was not hiding anything. Per usual, leftists like you make a mountain out of a mole hill. He should have been more direct, maybe".

DJT: Your country is very corrupt and my intelligence persons tell me that the whole Russia conspiracy started there in 2016. I have a hard time authorizing additional weaponry to a country that is corrupt. I understand you're trying to clean up the corruption. Would you please share with me what happened with Crowdstrike and how Hunter Biden got that board seat with Burisma? Why was the prosecutor fired?

I see ZERO wrong with this. NOTHING. He is not asking for the President of Ukraine to make shit up, he is asking for details on shit that actually happened.

I hope you understand this, Lopez.

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

Logic is useless to someone who won't acknowledge the "deliverable" wasn't for an investigation. It was for a public announcement of an investigation. Details are fucking irrelevant and the last thing Trump wants is a quest for the truth. Once the smear is out there, there's no need for an investigation. Trump is leveraging US foreign aid for a smear campaign to use in domestic politics.

Experience should tell you the con man is conning you. Maybe you were born every minute.

 

[Flopper]

Day 1:

This may come back to bite dems but...is today's hearing pointless?

The reason I ask is, neither if these two had first hand knowledge, but only heard it from other people. That is hearsay. Now, during this portion of the events, it may make for a good show, but, hearsay is not admissible as evidence. What happens if it goes to trial in the senate, and they say that all these testimonies that rely on hearsay are to be disregarded?

Jim Jordan did make a good point to Taylor's, and that is, if he got his information second hand, how does he know the original source is not wrong, or got some facts wrong.

And I know some will say "but this is not a criminal court but a political court", doesnt matter, still cant use hearsay as evidence, people make up stuff all the time.

Brilliant. First, you preclude any and all first-hand witnesses from testifying, and then you turn around and complain about the lack of first-hand witnesses.

Moreover, neither of the two witnesses may have seen Trump firing the shot (metaphor!), but they have seen how it percolated through the U.S. bureaucracy, and / or how the target took the hit.

Moreover, the hold on security assistance is already firmly established as a fact (Trump), as is Trump's extortion attempt (Trump, memorandum of the July 25 call).

Moreover, as to Jim Jordan, the Gish Galloping clown: Yeah, what if the original source is wrong? Did he really try to make a case against original witnesses?

Moreover, the evidence gathering isn't concluded, and, with Sondland, at least one "first hand" witness in apparently quite close contact with Trump is going to testify. The entirety of the testimonies and depositions will then be written into Articles of Impeachment insofar as they mutually confirm and support the already ample evidence, even if that process is too lengthy and complex for your attention span.

Finally, do you guys ever research anything before you bleat? I mean, just in case you care about looking stupid and ignorant:

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.​

Oh, and, just for the fun of it, there is this:

Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

* The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
* The declarant refuses to testify;
* The declarant does not remember;
* The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
* The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.​

So, since Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton and cohorts refuse to testify, we have the "refuses to testify" exception right there to make, yes, hearsay evidence admissible in court.

Hilarious. You do know that in these judge & jury movies folks are not really lawyers, they just play one on TV, don't you?

Since impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, hearsay evidence is always admissibly. To impeach a person and remove them from office, there is no requirement for a violation of a federal statue. Violation of oath of office, improper use of power, conduct unbecoming a president are valid articles of impeachment.

 

[007]

No.

If Trumpybear knew there was an open investigation into Good Ol'Joe he would turn him into Hillary the horrible in a heartbeat.

Sorry... but I don't speak bubble head lib-slang... I have no idea who Trumpybear is.

I bet you have one...

I bet you have your butt buddies shaft swallowed half way down your throat.

The rumor is your butt buddy has a 7 incher... Oh, OH , SEVEN!

So you're too STUPID to think up your own material, you have to COPY other people?

Moron, get a life.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Quote the statute titled "Abuse of power." The fact that a bunch of Dims made up a crime means nothing.

There doesn't have to be a statute, ya lying fucking moron.

Have you learned nothing at all??

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

Wrong. For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute. Otherwise it's just a whine.

Trump has committed crimes but you don't have to commit a crime to be fired from your job.

No, but they can only fire you if you did something against company policy, or something dangerous that would make them liable. Coming in late for a month is not against the law, but the company requires you to be there on time every day with some exceptions.

And Trump has violated company policy.

Company policy is high crimes and misdemeanors, neither of which Trump violated.

 

[007]

Day 1:

This may come back to bite dems but...is today's hearing pointless?

The reason I ask is, neither if these two had first hand knowledge, but only heard it from other people. That is hearsay. Now, during this portion of the events, it may make for a good show, but, hearsay is not admissible as evidence. What happens if it goes to trial in the senate, and they say that all these testimonies that rely on hearsay are to be disregarded?

Jim Jordan did make a good point to Taylor's, and that is, if he got his information second hand, how does he know the original source is not wrong, or got some facts wrong.

And I know some will say "but this is not a criminal court but a political court", doesnt matter, still cant use hearsay as evidence, people make up stuff all the time.

Brilliant. First, you preclude any and all first-hand witnesses from testifying, and then you turn around and complain about the lack of first-hand witnesses.

Moreover, neither of the two witnesses may have seen Trump firing the shot (metaphor!), but they have seen how it percolated through the U.S. bureaucracy, and / or how the target took the hit.

Moreover, the hold on security assistance is already firmly established as a fact (Trump), as is Trump's extortion attempt (Trump, memorandum of the July 25 call).

Moreover, as to Jim Jordan, the Gish Galloping clown: Yeah, what if the original source is wrong? Did he really try to make a case against original witnesses?

Moreover, the evidence gathering isn't concluded, and, with Sondland, at least one "first hand" witness in apparently quite close contact with Trump is going to testify. The entirety of the testimonies and depositions will then be written into Articles of Impeachment insofar as they mutually confirm and support the already ample evidence, even if that process is too lengthy and complex for your attention span.

Finally, do you guys ever research anything before you bleat? I mean, just in case you care about looking stupid and ignorant:

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.​

Oh, and, just for the fun of it, there is this:

Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

* The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
* The declarant refuses to testify;
* The declarant does not remember;
* The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
* The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.​

So, since Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton and cohorts refuse to testify, we have the "refuses to testify" exception right there to make, yes, hearsay evidence admissible in court.

Hilarious. You do know that in these judge & jury movies folks are not really lawyers, they just play one on TV, don't you?

Since impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, hearsay evidence is always admissibly. To impeach a person and remove them from office, there is no requirement for a violation of a federal statue. Violation of oath of office, improper use of power, conduct unbecoming a president are valid articles of impeachment.

What utter BULL SHIT.

Show us where ANY of that is WRITTEN IN LAW.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Day 1:

This may come back to bite dems but...is today's hearing pointless?

The reason I ask is, neither if these two had first hand knowledge, but only heard it from other people. That is hearsay. Now, during this portion of the events, it may make for a good show, but, hearsay is not admissible as evidence. What happens if it goes to trial in the senate, and they say that all these testimonies that rely on hearsay are to be disregarded?

Jim Jordan did make a good point to Taylor's, and that is, if he got his information second hand, how does he know the original source is not wrong, or got some facts wrong.

And I know some will say "but this is not a criminal court but a political court", doesnt matter, still cant use hearsay as evidence, people make up stuff all the time.

Brilliant. First, you preclude any and all first-hand witnesses from testifying, and then you turn around and complain about the lack of first-hand witnesses.

Moreover, neither of the two witnesses may have seen Trump firing the shot (metaphor!), but they have seen how it percolated through the U.S. bureaucracy, and / or how the target took the hit.

Moreover, the hold on security assistance is already firmly established as a fact (Trump), as is Trump's extortion attempt (Trump, memorandum of the July 25 call).

Moreover, as to Jim Jordan, the Gish Galloping clown: Yeah, what if the original source is wrong? Did he really try to make a case against original witnesses?

Moreover, the evidence gathering isn't concluded, and, with Sondland, at least one "first hand" witness in apparently quite close contact with Trump is going to testify. The entirety of the testimonies and depositions will then be written into Articles of Impeachment insofar as they mutually confirm and support the already ample evidence, even if that process is too lengthy and complex for your attention span.

Finally, do you guys ever research anything before you bleat? I mean, just in case you care about looking stupid and ignorant:

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.​

Oh, and, just for the fun of it, there is this:

Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

* The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
* The declarant refuses to testify;
* The declarant does not remember;
* The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
* The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.​

So, since Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton and cohorts refuse to testify, we have the "refuses to testify" exception right there to make, yes, hearsay evidence admissible in court.

Hilarious. You do know that in these judge & jury movies folks are not really lawyers, they just play one on TV, don't you?

Since impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, hearsay evidence is always admissibly. To impeach a person and remove them from office, there is no requirement for a violation of a federal statue. Violation of oath of office, improper use of power, conduct unbecoming a president are valid articles of impeachment.

Fishing without a license
Tearing the label off a pillow, etc

 

[RealDave]

Your Tucker Carlson fanboy routine, "so, you agree..." doesn't deserve respect. It's not an argument, it's an insult to intelligence. You're welcome to keep it.

In you case there isn't anything to insult, Gomez.

Sure there is. You're a coward who has been ducking the question of the "deliverable" for days. I expressed an honest opinion, and you respond with your juvenile "so" bullshit, and some Spanish names. Stick it, gomer.

That wasn't me - LOL.

You admitted the Biden thing is fishy, the deliverable is the truth of what happened in 2016 and how Biden got that gig is my guess. Again, I am smart. Very smart. But I am not a mind reader. I don't see anything wrong with what DJT did. I bet prior presidents have done similar crap. This was in an open phone call. He was not hiding anything. Per usual, leftists like you make a mountain out of a mole hill. He should have been more direct, maybe".

DJT: Your country is very corrupt and my intelligence persons tell me that the whole Russia conspiracy started there in 2016. I have a hard time authorizing additional weaponry to a country that is corrupt. I understand you're trying to clean up the corruption. Would you please share with me what happened with Crowdstrike and how Hunter Biden got that board seat with Burisma? Why was the prosecutor fired?

I see ZERO wrong with this. NOTHING. He is not asking for the President of Ukraine to make shit up, he is asking for details on shit that actually happened.

I hope you understand this, Lopez.

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

There is nothing between Hunter Biden & China. There as nothing inappropriate with Joe Biden in Ukraine.

Trump's extortion is obvious.

Your argument is a lie.

 

[The Original Tree]

Day 1:

This may come back to bite dems but...is today's hearing pointless?

The reason I ask is, neither if these two had first hand knowledge, but only heard it from other people. That is hearsay. Now, during this portion of the events, it may make for a good show, but, hearsay is not admissible as evidence. What happens if it goes to trial in the senate, and they say that all these testimonies that rely on hearsay are to be disregarded?

Jim Jordan did make a good point to Taylor's, and that is, if he got his information second hand, how does he know the original source is not wrong, or got some facts wrong.

And I know some will say "but this is not a criminal court but a political court", doesnt matter, still cant use hearsay as evidence, people make up stuff all the time.

Brilliant. First, you preclude any and all first-hand witnesses from testifying, and then you turn around and complain about the lack of first-hand witnesses.

Moreover, neither of the two witnesses may have seen Trump firing the shot (metaphor!), but they have seen how it percolated through the U.S. bureaucracy, and / or how the target took the hit.

Moreover, the hold on security assistance is already firmly established as a fact (Trump), as is Trump's extortion attempt (Trump, memorandum of the July 25 call).

Moreover, as to Jim Jordan, the Gish Galloping clown: Yeah, what if the original source is wrong? Did he really try to make a case against original witnesses?

Moreover, the evidence gathering isn't concluded, and, with Sondland, at least one "first hand" witness in apparently quite close contact with Trump is going to testify. The entirety of the testimonies and depositions will then be written into Articles of Impeachment insofar as they mutually confirm and support the already ample evidence, even if that process is too lengthy and complex for your attention span.

Finally, do you guys ever research anything before you bleat? I mean, just in case you care about looking stupid and ignorant:

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.​

Oh, and, just for the fun of it, there is this:

Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

* The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
* The declarant refuses to testify;
* The declarant does not remember;
* The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
* The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.​

So, since Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton and cohorts refuse to testify, we have the "refuses to testify" exception right there to make, yes, hearsay evidence admissible in court.

Hilarious. You do know that in these judge & jury movies folks are not really lawyers, they just play one on TV, don't you?

Since impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, hearsay evidence is always admissibly. To impeach a person and remove them from office, there is no requirement for a violation of a federal statue. Violation of oath of office, improper use of power, conduct unbecoming a president are valid articles of impeachment.

Actually there are general guidelines, and they are Criminal Guide Lines. "High Crimes" A Felony, and Misdemeanors.

But stupid people say stupid things like "Congress can make impeachment about anything it wants to."

No, it can't.