The Impeachment Trial

[Mountain Man]

"One of many examples of these detrimental actions is Mr. Trump's Muslim bans."

What Muslim bans?

[Bill the Cat]

Trump loves Modi for his hatred of Muslims.

What a truckload of biased garbage...

[The Pendragon]

In a criminal trial the jury needs to be unanimous not just 2/3 so why should impeachment be higher? Beyond reasonable doubt is the highest threshold to meet and is due to the severity of the outcome as life or liberty is at stake. Impeachment and removal results in losing ones job, why should the standard be higher?

What do you think ‘reasonable doubt’ means? And how would you apply it to a set of facts in a case?

Actually what is a stake with impeachment is the Congress taking power over the Executive Branch in the Government. With the President being subordinate to the Congress if Impeachment was held to a highest standard. That is why the Founders through out the Idea of Impeachment for malfeasance. Maleficence is what most of the State Department witnesses complain about, example Trump sending Sondland over to negotiate with the Ukrainians.

I apply it to the fact that almost all of the evidence you give is second hand knowledge at best. By the way what are the facts. Other then the Ukrainians saying there was no quid pro quo. And the Transcript of the call that has no quid pro quo which was confined to be accurate according to Shifty's own witness. The rest is supposition none of it is hard evidence. And again you can't produce any real evidence.

[The Pendragon]

Please get an understanding of what hearsay is before you criticize others. Ask any lawyer whether you could use Sondlands statement that Trump told him he wanted Â’no quid pro quoÂ’ as evidence that there was no quid pro quo in court and see what they say.

Someone using another persons statement to prove the truth of that statement is the definition of hearsay. Im a lawyer myself and your perception of how the courts work is detached from reality.

Again I will state that the witness testimonies are evidence that would be admissible in court, the fact that you and other trump supporters donÂ’t accept it doesnÂ’t mean thereÂ’s no evidence.

Reading what you claim the witnesses testified about makes it clear that you havenÂ’t understood or heard the evidence they provided. You can either read their testimonies again or the summary in the house report and try again. Dismissing it all as third or fourth hand hearsay is being just plain lazy or ignorant and most importantly, not true. ThatÂ’s why so many legal scholars and lawyers rightfully claimed that the evidence was overwhelming and why many republican senators reluctantly conceded that Trump did the wrong thing.

Sticking your head in the sand and being oblivious to the evidence wonÂ’t make it go away.

I'm no Lawyer but as I said before (listen close) this is different from Hearsay, Sondland was not testifying as to Trumps motive, Sondland was testifying to what Trump told him. It is for the prosecution or defense to prove motive with additional hard evidence. This is first hand information and not hearsay. The difference is subtle but its important as to the evidence. What make Sondland different from the hearsay of the other witnesses is that Sondland is under oath and is presumed to be telling the truth. While the other witnesses where also under oath their sources where not and therefore have no presumption truth from the sorces.

an example is the whistle blower, all of his testimony was second hand and it was worthless to Shifty because it did not match with the accrual transcript of the call, Although what was leaked bares a striking resemblance to Shifty's opening statement for the Impeachment Inquiry.

Rogue, One Bad Pig help me out here, if I'm mistaken in my understanding.

The other witnesses testified as to what some one else told them was said by Trump or what they assumed was said. I stand by my assertion that Sondland had first hand information and the rest had second hand or worst. It is your assumption that Trump did not mean what he said, you have not provided any facts to back up you assumption, I can say the same about the Bidens I have no facts to back up the assumption that there was something nefarious going on, but under your standards on evidence they are guilty as sin, By the way please site where I have ever said the the Bidens did anything wrong or are guilty of anything, I've only said that there is enough probable cause to allow any one to ask Ukraine to look into it, regardless of Uncle Joe running for President, Running fo president does not make him immune from investigation. As you liberals like to say no one is above the law.

Using your standard of evidence on Hillary or Schiff or the Bidens would mean thereÂ’s absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing by any of them.

Rules of evidence is rather complex and itÂ’s not uncommon for evidence to be admitted or not based on how itÂ’s argued. Having said that, itÂ’s not difficult to argue the relevance for any of the witnesses that have testified if this had been a trial.

First off stop you false claims that I have said that the Biden's are guilty of any thing. That's as much a lie as Shifty's opening statement for the impeachment hearings.

As for my allegations about Shifts Opening statement being a lie Shifty himself provides me with my hard evidence, When you compare the opening statement with the transcript of the call they don't match in fact they are like two separate calls. On the surface I can put out two gross misrepresentations.


Shifty - "I want you to make up dirt on my opponent lots of it"
The Transcipt - "I heard that there are a lot of bad thing going on around hunter Biden it does not look good to us could you look into it"

Shifty implied that Trump wanted Ukraine to actively make up things about Biden, while the transcript really has no expectation as to an out come and is asking the Ukrainians to look into something that even the Obama administration thought looked really bad.

Shift - "Now I want you to really listen, to me because I'm only going to say this 7 more times"
Transcrpt - "???????????????"

Shifty either made this up out of whole cloth, or more likely took it from the whistle blowers testimony. Which was again second hand information, and goes to prove why its unreliable not real evidence. this is my evidence as to why we don't trust what Shifty says if he's willing to Lie here at such an important venue as an impeachment trial what s to stop he for lying any time.

Almost all of what Shifty said in that opening statement where gross misrepresentations as bad as the above statements. May be you should get your head out of the sand and realize the true facts. As was said before so much of what Shifty said was off that when pressed He had to claim it was a "parody". If Shifty wanted us to take the Impeachment seriously, Why would he start it out with a "Parody". And you wonder why we don't take his assertions seriously.

As for Hilary (You brought her up not any one here) She admitted to destroying evidence when said that she deleted some of her Emails off a sever that was under subpoena to preserve the emails. again like Shifty this is not second hand information or even your version of Hearsay (where she told someone else) we have it from her own mouth.

So in short I don't need hearsay to prove my case for those three. In the case of Hilary and Shift the my evidence is their own word in front of masses of people. As for the Bidens I never accused them of anything I just asserted that what the Bidens did made it look very much like there was some hanky panty going on and Trump had the right to look into it regardless of Uncle Joes status at the time. Running for president does not make you immune from investigation, If it did what was Crossfire Hurricane all about, Oh yah that had links to Hilary to didn't it, something about paying for false dirt on Trump from a British Spy.

I've given you strong evidence against the claims against Hilary and Shifty. Where is your strong evidence against Trump. Still waiting!!!

and again,

No More Pick-a-Little, Talk-a-Little, Pick, Pick, Pick, Talk, Talk-a-Little

[RumTumTugger]

Since Watermelon, JimL nor Tass can show the evidence the Democrats brought forth that would stand up in a court of law The Pendragon asked for, I call on them to admit that it was the Democrats who perpetrated a sham and care nothing about the Constitution or Rule of Law. Until they show evidence or admit they have been sold a bill of Goods from the Democrats we should move on and admit that the American People have a right to elect whom they want as president and not have elite power hungry folks on the left try and take that right away from them.

[Tassman]

Since Watermelon, JimL nor Tass can show the evidence the Democrats brought forth that would stand up in a court of law The Pendragon asked for, I call on them to admit that it was the Democrats who perpetrated a sham and care nothing about the Constitution or Rule of Law. Until they show evidence or admit they have been sold a bill of Goods from the Democrats we should move on and admit that the American People have a right to elect whom they want as president and not have elite power hungry folks on the left try and take that right away from them.

We shall never know for certain given that the Senate forfeited its duty and refused to conduct a proper trial. But what the House established was a presidential abuse of power, i.e. the use of official power to obtain an improper personal benefit, while ignoring or injuring the national interest. The President does not need to commit a crime for there to be an impeachable offense. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote about impeachment in Federalist No. 65: “The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust”. This is what Trump did.

[Watermelon]

Since Watermelon, JimL nor Tass can show the evidence the Democrats brought forth that would stand up in a court of law The Pendragon asked for, I call on them to admit that it was the Democrats who perpetrated a sham and care nothing about the Constitution or Rule of Law. Until they show evidence or admit they have been sold a bill of Goods from the Democrats we should move on and admit that the American People have a right to elect whom they want as president and not have elite power hungry folks on the left try and take that right away from them.

It’s pretty crazy to think witness testimonies are no longer regarded as evidence.

[Mountain Man]

We shall never know for certain given that the Senate House forfeited its duty and refused to conduct a proper trial investigation.

[JimL]

That you believe the House didn't conduct a proper investigation is irrelvant to the fact that the Senate refused to conduct a proper trial, and the fact that they didn't conduct a proper trial was admitted to by MoscowMitch himself.

[Mountain Man]

It’s pretty crazy to think witness testimonies are no longer regarded as evidence.

Witness testimony, yes; "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy", no.

What the Democrats proved:

-Trump spoke with Zelinsky on the phone and suggested that he look into Joe and Hunter Biden and the Burisma deal without any conditions put on their willingness to do so
-Trump temporarily delayed the disbursement of military aid to Ukraine but released it before the legally mandated deadline without Ukraine taking any specific action

What the Democrats needed to prove but didn't:

-Trump had explicitly tied the dispersement of military aid to Ukraine's willingness to investigate the Biden's and gave this instruction directly to people in his administration
-The Ukrainian government was aware of this condition placed on the dispersement of military aid and acted accordingly
-Trump's motives were exclusively for his own benefit and against the best interests of the United States
-Trump's actions were illegal

[The Pendragon]

We shall never know for certain given that the Senate forfeited its duty and refused to conduct a proper trial. But what the House established was a presidential abuse of power, i.e. the use of official power to obtain an improper personal benefit, while ignoring or injuring the national interest. The President does not need to commit a crime for there to be an impeachable offense. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote about impeachment in Federalist No. 65: “The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust”. This is what Trump did.

Well it's the House that never called the people you're talking about it other impeachment trials of a president the witnesses called in the Senate had already been called in the house. Also it was the House and Shifty that trough away due process when they would not allow republicans to call their own witnesses (Shifty only allowed them to call witnesses Shifty wanted), again when the White House lawyers where not aloud to be at the hearings and ask questions, also holding hearings in secret and then not releasing all the testimony. not allowing exculpatory evidence to be brought in. It is also of note that the House Demarcates broke their own rules when they did not allow the minority to have a day of testimony where they could call any witnesses they wanted.

So all in all, I just can't give it to much thought when the Senate did not call witnesses that the House decided where not worth their time. While all the partisan Kangaroo court proceedings in the house and the demarcates rule breaking and lack of due process. the Impeachment was a shame to start with.

Tass, you don't understand (because you don't live here) how things work in America but here the prosecution needs to prove guilt, and there is a presumption of innocence and Due Process. when these things are not met the accused is acquitted

[The Pendragon]

It’s pretty crazy to think witness testimonies are no longer regarded as evidence.

As has been said before, Hearsay is not evidence. So any witness that only testifies to what they heard second, third or fourth hand, are not valid witnesses. So to answer your question what you call witnesses are not evidence.
The only witnesses that where not hearsay proved the defense's case.

One was Sondland, who testified as to what Trump told him directly. That Trump did not want a Quid Pro Quo. as to Trump motive in saying that until someone comes up with evidence as to ulterior motive, we must presume Trump was telling the truth under “Presumption of Innocence”.
The second was Vindman, who was on the call and while he testified that the transcript of the call was not accurate on cross examination it was found that what Vindman wanted to add did not change the call so only proved that the transcript was accurate.

So no Watermelon, Hearsay Witnesses are not true Witnesses.

I gave a more detailed reason in my post above but is seems like it disproves your assertion so you ignored it:

I'm no Lawyer but as I said before (listen close) this is different from Hearsay, Sondland was not testifying as to Trumps motive, Sondland was testifying to what Trump told him. It is for the prosecution or defense to prove motive with additional hard evidence. This is first hand information and not hearsay. The difference is subtle but its important as to the evidence. What make Sondland different from the hearsay of the other witnesses is that Sondland is under oath and is presumed to be telling the truth. While the other witnesses where also under oath their sources where not and therefore have no presumption truth from the sources.

“Watermelon keeps using that word (Witness), I do not think it means what he thinks it means”

[Sparko]

I'm no Lawyer but as I said before (listen close) this is different from Hearsay, Sondland was not testifying as to Trumps motive, Sondland was testifying to what Trump told him. It is for the prosecution or defense to prove motive with additional hard evidence. This is first hand information and not hearsay. The difference is subtle but its important as to the evidence. What make Sondland different from the hearsay of the other witnesses is that Sondland is under oath and is presumed to be telling the truth. While the other witnesses where also under oath their sources where not and therefore have no presumption truth from the sorces.

an example is the whistle blower, all of his testimony was second hand and it was worthless to Shifty because it did not match with the accrual transcript of the call, Although what was leaked bares a striking resemblance to Shifty's opening statement for the Impeachment Inquiry.

From what I understand a witness may testifiy in court as to what another party in the suit told him directly, that is not hearsay. Hearsay would be someone saying what someone else told him about the other party.

If Bob is on trial for murder and he told Sally that he is a murderer, Sally can testify to that in court. If Bob told Billy and Billy told Sally, then it would be hearsay unless Billy was there to testify.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-hearsay-31738

[Cerebrum123]

From what I understand a witness may testifiy in court as to what another party in the suit told him directly, that is not hearsay. Hearsay would be someone saying what someone else told him about the other party.

If Bob is on trial for murder and he told Sally that he is a murderer, Sally can testify to that in court. If Bob told Billy and Billy told Sally, then it would be hearsay unless Billy was there to testify.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-hearsay-31738

Apparently is is different from state to state. In some cases bringing up something you heard someone say, or even have direct evidence of(such as a text) is considered "hearsay" if the person who said it isn't there.

[Sparko]

Apparently is is different from state to state. In some cases bringing up something you heard someone say, or even have direct evidence of(such as a text) is considered "hearsay" if the person who said it isn't there.

That's what I said above. If the person Billy told Sally that Bob said he murdered someone, and Sally testified in court it would be hearsay unless Billly was there to corroborate it under testimony. At which point they would cross examine Billy and his hearing Bob say he murdered someone would be direct testimony. It would be the same with a text. If Billy sent a text to Sally saying "Bob said he killed Brenda!" that text would be hearsay until Billy was there to testify to it's validity. Sally could have just made a fake text.