(12-21-2019, 12:52 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(12-21-2019, 12:21 PM)jj82284 Wrote: 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.

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.

---

(12-21-2019, 02:12 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: This is not a criminal trial, and there is no supply of impartial jurors from which to draw.  It's laughable for Pelosi to demand fairness when the House Dems have been single-minded impeachment zombies since 2016.

Mikesez says that the House sham was totes fair and OrangeManBad is guilty of something or other.

---