Did a hearing start today or something?
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
The Obama admin did worse, VP Biden extorted, quid pro quo’d, obstructed justice, and used undue political influence for personal gain on behalf of his son.
thanks for bringing this back full circle. Appreciate it.
If Democrats ever decide to vote out articles of impeachment from committee, they'd better be on more than Ukraine. So far, not even that will hold up to a vote to impeach, let alone convict in the Senate. They have nothing else.
excerpt:
Yet the more immediate problem for House Democrats may not be constitutional but architectural in nature. If they want to move forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy, it would be the narrowest impeachment in history. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of a structure.
...more
The physics is simple. The higher the building, the wider the foundation. There is no higher constitutional structure than the impeachment of a sitting president and, for that reason, an impeachment must have a wide foundation in order to be successful. The Ukraine controversy is not such a foundation, and Democrats are building a structurally unsound case that will be lucky to make it to the Senate before collapsing.
Johnathan Turley explains why the Dems will ultimately fail because they don't have a case, and aren't making one.
Are Democrats building a "collapsible" impeachment?
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/470217-are-democrats-building-a-collapsible-impeachment
excerpt:
Yet the more immediate problem for House Democrats may not be constitutional but architectural in nature. If they want to move forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy, it would be the narrowest impeachment in history. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of a structure.
...more
The physics is simple. The higher the building, the wider the foundation. There is no higher constitutional structure than the impeachment of a sitting president and, for that reason, an impeachment must have a wide foundation in order to be successful. The Ukraine controversy is not such a foundation, and Democrats are building a structurally unsound case that will be lucky to make it to the Senate before collapsing.
Johnathan Turley explains why the Dems will ultimately fail because they don't have a case, and aren't making one.
Are Democrats building a "collapsible" impeachment?
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/470217-are-democrats-building-a-collapsible-impeachment
Last edited:
the bottom line from today:
Ukraine did NOT investigate the Bidens, (or anything else for that matter)
Ukraine got all the aid that was appropriated to it, including deadly Defense weaponry.
Nothing else matters related to any "impeachable" offense. There was no "extortion" there was no "bribery" there was no "quid pro quo", and as a result of the Democrats' failure to prove any of these there will be no vote to impeach the President.
It's over, the rest of this is just a smear show.
As I posted in #85 of this thread...this thing will fall apart for lack of a solid foundation. Those of you on the Left, ask yourselves why Mueller's "obstruction" is not even scheduled to be part of these hearings?
Jonathan Turley knows why
(from article linked in post #85)
For three years, Democrats in Congress have insisted that a variety of criminal and impeachable acts were established as part of the Russia investigation. Even today, critics of Trump insist that, at a minimum, special counsel Robert Mueller found as many as ten acts of criminal obstruction of justice. That is not true as he investigated those acts of obstruction but found evidence of noncriminal motivations that would have made any criminal case highly unlikely to succeed. For that reason, Attorney General William Barr and then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein agreed there was no case for criminal obstruction.
Putting aside that legal judgment, the glaring absence of any articles of impeachment related to Russia would raise a rather obvious problem. If these criminal or impeachable acts are so clear, why would Democrats not include them in the actual impeachment? There are only two possible reasons why these “clearly established” crimes would not be included. Either they are not established, as some of us have argued, or Democratic leaders do not actually want to remove Trump from office.
House Democrats have nothing else. They have not proven their case for Trump's "extortion" of Ukraine, they did not prove their charge of his "collusion" with Russians, and they cannot prove any "obstruction" on his part of any criminal investigation. They got nothing!
No impeachment.
Jonathan Turley knows why
(from article linked in post #85)
For three years, Democrats in Congress have insisted that a variety of criminal and impeachable acts were established as part of the Russia investigation. Even today, critics of Trump insist that, at a minimum, special counsel Robert Mueller found as many as ten acts of criminal obstruction of justice. That is not true as he investigated those acts of obstruction but found evidence of noncriminal motivations that would have made any criminal case highly unlikely to succeed. For that reason, Attorney General William Barr and then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein agreed there was no case for criminal obstruction.
Putting aside that legal judgment, the glaring absence of any articles of impeachment related to Russia would raise a rather obvious problem. If these criminal or impeachable acts are so clear, why would Democrats not include them in the actual impeachment? There are only two possible reasons why these “clearly established” crimes would not be included. Either they are not established, as some of us have argued, or Democratic leaders do not actually want to remove Trump from office.
House Democrats have nothing else. They have not proven their case for Trump's "extortion" of Ukraine, they did not prove their charge of his "collusion" with Russians, and they cannot prove any "obstruction" on his part of any criminal investigation. They got nothing!
No impeachment.
It’s like there is video of him bragging about it. It’s like there was live testimony today where one YOUR witnesses stated it needed to be investigated.
I hope you don’t get paid for this, you’re stealing their money.
LMAO! You’re obviously not paying attention, or too stupid to realize we have the biggest con man in the history of this country in the WH. I’ll go with the latter.
LMAO! That was very well established today.
Hahahahahahahahahaha. ********, I’m pretty amazed at just how dumb you are. It is impressive.
Go through the elements of each crime your tribe say he broke and give your best legal opinion of how you would prove each element. [eyeroll]
A lot of you running that ignorant mouth but absolutely zero answers given. I know why.
Nope. Don’t have the spare time. And more interested in what the actual evidence is. For my purposes, the evidence means much more than the whistleblower or his/her lawyers. If the whistleblower and lawyers are super-duper straight arrows, and all that, but there is insufficient evidence, pffft. If the whistleblower and his/her lawyers are swamp-rats, but there is strong evidence of impeachable offenses, then there is strong evidence of impeachable offenses. I know some disagree, but i want to see/hear the evidence, not get caught up in the sideshow about personalities.
Nothing was established except that Schiff is a blubbering idiot with crazy eyes.
Hes just another minority with a successful life who doesnt live on the liberal plantation.
I have a feeling you were at the top of your misreading class in elementary school.......even tho it took you 16 years to complete..
Hearsay is one of the most complicated areas of the evidentiary rules. Several general points:
1. Hearsay, as folks are referring to some of these statements, is controlled by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Those Rules apply in a court of law. Congress is not a court of law. I don’t know if Congress has agreed to follow those Rules of Evidence in these proceedings or not. I’m guessing not. If not, the clamor is moot.
2. There is hearsay, there is hearsay upon hearsay, there is admissible hearsay . . .
3. There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule. There are exceptions to the exceptions.
4. For example, if a witness refuses to testify based on a privilege of some sort, it is possible that hearsay would be admissible regarding a conversation in which that person was involved.
5. The question of hearsay is not a simple matter, certainly not as simple and clear-cut as being made out regarding these proceedings.
6. Bluntly, well-experienced lawyers and judges often struggle during trial on hearsay questions. I sure have. That’s even after anticipating its occurrence and researching the specific issue ahead of time.
If you want to get some inkling about the twists and turns regarding hearsay, here’s a link to the hearsay rules in the Federal Rules of Evidence.
https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/