Done (with a minor edit). Thanks.
Curious - what’s to stop people from outside, say, Kentucky, from using a random Kentucky address to contact McConnell pretending to be a supporter in favor of impeaching Trump? Do they verify in some way before tallying support numbers?
I’m not familiar with the hashtag, but until somebody who was on the call goes under oath and says they heard Mr. Trump say those words, the content of the memorandum itself is hearsay. The exception to the hearsay rules allows staffers to testify that they heard Mr. Trump say something if Mr. Trump himself is unavailable to testify. They do not allow a memorandum written by his staffers about what he said to be entered into evidence unless somebody with direct knowledge testifies as to that memorandum’s accuracy. Especially if the staffers are available to testify.
If a machine transcribed the call, and nobody with direct knowledge is available to testify, someone would have to come in and testify as to the reliability of the machine.
This is not a bar to an inquiry, impeachment, or conviction unless Congress wants it to be. And it is easily resolved by questioning the staffers under oath. “Sir, were you listening when Mr. Trump spoke with Mr. Zelensky on July 25, 2019?” “Yes.” “Very good. Remember that you are under oath. Do you remember hearing Mr. Trump say, quote…” “Yes.” “Are you certain that Mr. Trump spoke those exact words?” “I am not certain, but I am fairly confident based on my contemporaneous notes…”
I can’t imagine why anyone would object to this.
~Max
Saying you may not vote for the Democrat takes away some of the leverage that you seek. Do you think DJT gave a shit whether you voted for Jill Stein in 2016? Hell no, he just cared that you didn’t vote for Hillary.
The next few weeks will be crucial. We need the whistleblower to tell us who the other witnesses are and get them to testify. Then get transcripts of the other calls to Ukraine as well as those to Putin. They’ll fight it in court, but the courts would expedite such cases. Have to get this in front of the people before the holidays take over.
Naw, I have no problem saying that. Telling them I’m not going to vote down-ballot Republican if I see Donald J Trump on the ballot is nothing but the Gods-Honest truth. 
Sorry, Max S. but contemporaneous records are not “by definition hearsay”.
My reps & senators ask for zip code or email address.
Not exactly the most foolproof system, to be honest. I could call Moscow Mitch and claim to be a Kentuckian (sp?), but that seems a little over the edge and dishonest - just as fine telling him I’m a pissed off Texan, and if they ignore me, that’s up to them.
But I wouldn’t lie. That would be, uh, “election interference”, would it not? 
Can someone tell me how this argument makes any sense?:
"We can’t have process designed to destroy the presidency that relies on anonymous accusers or hearsay accusations.
If the transcript of the phone call is the only basis for impeachment – what a joke."
The transcript was released by the White House. Trump has corroborated what it says. I don’t get how this makes even enough sense for a GOP talking point.
Obviously rewrite it to something that reflects your views on the subject - since I have Cruz and Cornyn on my list of Senators, I preferred to couch today’s argument in terms of the down-ballot impact their non-support of impeachment will have. If I had the Castro brothers as my Senators, my post above would’ve been cast a little differently.
Obviously YMMV.
(If I would’ve written that post tomorrow, it would’ve been about national security concerns or something completely different. )
“Sir, your secretary entered, in no fewer than 14 calendar assignments, dates with your mistress.”
“Well, that’s hearsay. I didn’t make the calendar entries!”
No one is trying to destroy the presidency. Restore the presidency is more like it.
Does Ukraine have a Vice President? Maybe that guy could lobby for Barr to be removed. Then we’d be all even-Stevens, right?
Is cyberspace a room? 
Or how about a murder trial where the victim kept a “I’m being stalked” diary and the murderer kept a “I’m stalking someone” journal. One author is dead and the other might decline to testify as a witness, so neither diary can be used in court?
Your welcome!
Mr. Conway’s reasons are:
[ol][li]Mr. Trump’s statements are not hearsay according to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2).[/li][li]Mr. Trump’s statements are not hearsay according to the exception in Rule 804(b)(3).[/li][li]Mr. Guiliani’s statements are admissible against Trump and not hearsay under Rule 804(b)(3).[/li][li]The memorandum is not hearsay due to Rule 803(1).[/li][li]The memorandum is not hearsay due to Rule 803(5).[/li][li]The memorandum is not hearsay due to Rule 803(6).[/li][li]The memorandum is not hearsay due to Rule 803(8).[/li][li]Neither house of Congress is bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence.[/ol][/li]Of these, the only ones I need to refute are reasons based on Rule 803. 803(1) provides an exception for hearsay if the statement presented was a “present sense impression”, made in the moment by the declarant who may or may not be available to testify. This exception still requires a witness with direct knowledge to testify that the declarant made that statement. Then the statement can be used as evidence that what declarant said was true. As applied to the white house staffer, admitting their notes into evidence without calling on them to testify requires a witness who observed the staffer making those notes. Even then I’m not sure if that can be used against Mr. Trump, because I’m not sure if a witness under 803(5) can be replaced by a witness-to-a-witness under 803(1). That would be third-hand knowledge.
803(5) applies to recorded recollections, such as notes made soon after listening to the declarant speak. Even if declarant refuses to testify, such notes can be used as evidence that declarant said something, provided that a witness is available to testify that they heard the speech and made an accurate record while speech was fresh in memory, even if the witness cannot recall the speech now.
803(6) applies to records of a regularly conducted activity, such as notes made by white house staffers during a presidential phone call. A custodian, witness, or in certain cases a certificate is still required.
803(8) applies to public records, such as a memorandum released by the White House. To qualify under this exception, the memorandum must be certified (signed off as accurate by an official who normally signs off on such things) or testified to in person.
~Max
Yeah it is pretty clear under Rule VI. VP (Pence) notifies CJOTUS of when the trial is to be held and swears in CJ Roberts. After that CJ Roberts presides and calls them to order (implied by Rule VII).
The people thinking McConnell has it in his power to stop the trial (NYT, politico) have never read the Senate Rules on Impeachment and thinks it’s like every other Senate procedure.
Nope. That was decided recently in a murder conviction based on the Confrontation Clause.
As applied by way of analogy, the secretary would need to testify or the calendar is hearsay.
~Max
There is a county in Texas where Beto received a total of six votes. Even in Texas, it has a reputation as being the most conservative county in the State.
For the past 25 years it has been served in the House of Representatives by Mac Thornberry, Republican.
Mac becomes the sixth Texas Republican to “retire”. Given his long years of service, this one isn’t too outside the norm, but still… guess Mac didn’t want to spend his days up to 2020 defending treachery.