(12-22-2019, 02:55 AM)jj82284 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.

Well let's just let innuendo and gossip into the official public record to smear our opponent and trump up charges.  Nevermind our responsibility to pursue truth overall or uphold the traditions of common law since the founding of the country.  #ORANGEMANBAD

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.

There was a time when you could be forgiven for just being ignorant.  But now you're just a $(^) Liar!  on 2/2/16 The case was advanced against Burisma, The home of the owning oligarch was raided, and they were looking to seize his assets.  Representatives from the company were desperately calling the state department dropping Hunter Biden's name.  3 weeks later the guys fired.   You actually sit there with a straight face, and tell the rest of us why third hand hearsay can be seen as credible but then try to ignore clear documentary evidence (We have the court filings) and direct sworn testimony (on tape and in the form of an affidavit under penalty of perjury.)  Do you hate the man that much?

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.

You're entire case for corrupt intent evaporates when there is actual probable cause to investigate.  Just the way the payments to Hunter were structured would AUTOMATICALLY trigger a money laundering investigation against any US citizen.  Paul Manafort is sitting in jail as we speak for something similar.  

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.

There is nothing "SO CALLED" about it.  The supreme court has already recognized it and upheld it.  It is incumbent on congress to take a matter before the courts and then have them rule that an inquiry is so important that it pierces this privilege.  Also, I have seen u argue that it doesn't extend to the president's inner circle.  That's categorically untrue.  SCOTUS held specifically that this privilege extends to the presidents close advisers, under separation of powers, that he may have confidential deliberations.  Its very close to attorney client.  To make the case for obstruction, based on the assertion of privilege, it would have to be in defiance of a court order from SCOTUS saying that he had to turn over documents.  The Majority in the house not only knows this, they know that they would have lost if they went to court.  This has never been about removing the president.  IT's about being able to credibly use the I word in campaign ads.  

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.

Is anyone saying that the president should remove congress?  And don't worry. The voters are going to have a field day with this.  

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.

You don't destroy executive privilege unless necessary.  In this case, the documentary evidence on record DESTROYS any thought that the president didn't have the requisite predicate to ask for an investigation into the potential obstruction of justice by Joe Biden.  

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 left has succeeded in convincing so many people that this is some sort of human drama.  Is this person going to testify?  IS that person going to testify.  Was the president in a bad mood today.  Did he swear when he told you to leave the room.  Do you think the president tweets too much.  etc.  

There is documentary evidence that the cover story "The investigation was closed" is a lie regarding the firing of shokin.  There is documentary evidence that the payments made to Hunter Biden were potentially laundered.  If anyone else on this board got millions of dollars filtered through 4 countries and shell companies owned by international criminals then you get investigated!