(12-21-2019, 11:00 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(12-21-2019, 10:24 AM)Last42min Wrote: Insufficient argument.

You want me to try for a sufficient argument? You never second anything I say...

---

(12-21-2019, 10:22 AM)jj82284 Wrote: Hearsay=get a life.  

Not that difficult

What laypeople call hearsay is admissible in many circumstances under the federal rules of evidence. Especially when trying to prove a conspiracy.
However, the federal rules of evidence speak to criminal procedure, and impeachment is not a criminal procedure, but a political one. The process is not to decide guilt and punishment. It decides removal from public office and disqualification from future public office.

Just think about how ignorant this is.  Calling something "political" doesnt magically make third hand hearsay or speculation any more credible to determining TRUTH.  

This whole thing is about establishing that the president a.) Acted with corrupt intent b.) Did so in a manner that could seriously compromise the national interest.  Any sane person would take the admission by ALL WITNESSES that they were not aware of potential charges or wrongdoing by joe biden as disqualifying of whatever concerns they may have had about corrupt intent.  Case closed go home.

Moreover, impeachment was designed to be the last recourse for a rogue president acting outside the bounds of checks and balances. That's not the case here.  

They accuse him of withholding funds improperly.  The budget control act sets out that the executive does have limited discretion on the release of funds and sets out a timeframe to release said funds before his administration would have to show cause.  

He's accused of having an improper conversation with a foreign leader.  The transcript was preserved, declassified and released.  

He is accused of obstructing Congress.  SCOTUS has held that the close advisors to the chief executive have virtually infinite immunity from compulsion to testify before the legislature under executive privilege and separation of powers.  

The idea that we would jump to impeachment for clearly lawful acts is a childish abuse of power to distract from the left's weakening hand in 2020.  Just shrowding it in the term political is akin to saying "we plan to remove you from office and disenfranchise your voters because you killed your wife.  We won't allow her to testify because this is just a political not criminal matter."  

Also, it has been held that our constitutional rights do and should extend to congressional proceedings.  The idea that "congress shall make no law" means unless they want to publicly smear you and destroy their political futures is childish on its face.

---