(12-21-2019, 03:13 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(12-21-2019, 12:52 PM)mikesez Wrote: You can decide what is credible for yourself.  Each of our 100 senators should do the same.  Sometimes hearsay is credible. The federal rules of evidence allow for one person to testify about what another person said in some circumstances.

Each of the witnesses said they were not aware of potential wrongdoing by Joe Biden, yes, but this could be because Joe Biden nothing wrong. You take it as given that he did something wrong, but that is begging the question. You are correct that, if there was actually reasonable suspicion that Joe Biden had acted in a corrupt manner, a lot of what Rudy Giuliani and Trump have done doesn't look corrupt anymore. However, there's no reasonable suspicion of this. The timeline of how that prosecutor got fired and why does not point to it having anything to do with Hunter.

Next you lay out that the president has prerogatives to withhold funds and talk with foreign leaders as he pleases - this is correct. These things are within his powers. However, the president should never use any of his powers with corrupt intent, that is the abuse of power.

The Constitution lays out that some of the president's powers evaporate when an impeachment trial starts.  And then those powers come back if the impeachment trial ends without a conviction. Is the so-called executive privilege immunity one of these powers? I suppose that's for the supreme Court to decide.

You might be correct that Congress is currently abusing its powers of investigation and of impeachment. But the president cannot remove Congress. Congress can remove the president. Only the voters can cure Congress abusing its power this way.

Anyhow if your complaint about the Democrats' impeachment report is that it relies on what you call hearsay, you should want to remedy that by getting testimony under oath from the main players, people like Mulvaney and Bolton.

After all, if Trump really did not have any corrupt intent, the testimony from Mulvaney and Bolton should show that, right?
When a prosecutor hears about a crime, but the person they heard from cannot give testimony about it that would be admissible in court, that prosecutor will always subpoena people who can give testimony that is admissible in court.

The basis of all American Law is that the prosecution has to prove the case and the Accused does not have to participate. No matter how much you say that they should testify the simple and most basic fundamental of our law says that they don't have to and that you have to prove your case even if they do not. Since they have not, and you have not proven your case, then the vote to impeach is seen, rightly so, as a mere political tactic by the Democratic Party. You can kvetch all you want, torture the words and laws all you want, pout and cry all you want, even go as far as to pretend that you are correct all you want, but the facts are not on your side and the Senate, and by extension the American People, knows it and will hold you accountable next November.