My understanding of the rules of evidence is that all evidence must be presented by a human being under oath in a courtroom, subject to cross-examination, or inferred based on such evidence. No exceptions.
~Max
So what you are saying is that all evidence presented before Congress is disqualified because it isn’t a court of law?
[DEL]I did not make that assertion[/DEL]. Congress is free to impeach and convict the president based on hearsay, but I don’t think they should. Congress can also administer the oath to testify truthfully, if that’s what you mean.
ETA: whoops, I see what you mean. Just strike where I said “in a courtroom”.
~Max
Okay, so Pence can stop the trial by never formally notifying Roberts that they want a trial to commence.
I suppose the Senate could change their rules if the Vice President doesn’t cooperate. That would require a (bipartisan) supermajority to overcome the filibuster before a rule change can be voted on.
~Max
The side-track about hearsay, the speculation about how afraid Democrats will be to impeach their best boogeyman, the hijacks about Hunter: these are all really interesting.
I presume that if Republicans could defend Trump’s behavior on its own merits, that’s what they’d be doing. They’d be explaining why it’s appropriate to involve Trump’s personal lawyer in a request to a foreign nation to investigate Trump’s political rival, and then to sequester the record of the request.
Instead of explaining why that’s appropriate, we get the Hunter hijack, the Boogeyman bullshit, the hearsay horsepucky.
I won’t say that our conservatives here necessarily offer the best defenses available to Republicans–but I will say that I haven’t heard any other Republicans offering better defenses.
Thanks for the illuminating responses to my question about keeping the whistleblower’s identity secret. Follow-up question: If the committee members do find out the whistleblower’s identity, what are the odds they’d keep it from Trump, and what consequences could there be for the whistleblower if Trump finds out?
Anyway, they are twisting facts again. Hearsay is inadmissible at trial. We are not at that stage yet. Law enforcement officers are NOT prohibited for using credible hearsay statements during an investigation.
This is another Trumpian thing, the idea that you can’t investigate a crime until you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Which, if it were true, would mean no one could ever be investigated for anything.
And of course, this would be a trial for removal from office. I doubt that the Federal rules of evidence were in play either of the last two times we did this.
For those of us who have been following politics for a long time, Mac was elected in 1994, riding Gingrich’s “Contract With America” wave. And, with his departure, that’s it for these 1994 Republicans - there are no more left.
Just FYI… now back to your regularly scheduled impeachment thread…
If he wants to walk across Midtown Manhattan, better to ride the crosstown bus.
… and, no matter what, avoid Fifth Avenue!
I already admitted that [POST=21883945]if the allegations were true, I would support impeachment and conviction[/POST]. If I were a lawyer for the president or devoted to his person I might go to further lengths to defend his actions, but I’m not, so I won’t. The burden is on them; being a Republican does not mean I need to speculate about (much less substantiate) some alternative rationale.
I’ll take it as a compliment.
~Max
From the board wide forum rules:
There has been quite a bit of this in the thread. It’s fast moving, and people are obviously interested in the topic. I think people can figure out if they want to take additional action on their own. The purpose of the board is one of discussion, not a mechanism for calls to action.
There is a fine line to be sure, and I’m only quoting this one post because it was the most recent. But as a note to everyone, please avoid calls to action such as this.
[/moderating]
In Lindsey Graham’s defense, he is a Senator and his vote comes during the trial stage. He is calling for the House to have someone testify based on direct knowledge. That way the Republicans can cross-examine the witness - you can’t cross-examine a piece of paper.
~Max
Someone with direct knowledge already corroborated what is asserted in the whistleblower’s complaint. It was Trump, when he released the call summary. “A perfect call.”
The White House released this transcript as their own version of events. Why is this hard to understand? This isn’t hearsay - this is the White House saying “here’s what happened”!
Exactly, if Trump wants to go to trial in front of the senate and explain why he himself released a fake transcript of a call, explain what was actually said on the call, and why he didn’t catch the error before and why we should now believe him, he’s free to do that.
Until then, the transcript of the call is his own version of events, and it’s repugnant. There’s really no further corroboration or investigation required, as far as I’m concerned.
Finally, today, a bit of movement in the right direction: 42.8% approval (down from a high of 43.1%, on Sept. 24).
In statistical combination with a couple earlier polls (e.g., YouGov’s 41% figure), this is just based on one C+ poll by Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion, conducted Sept 25-29. The raw number was 49% approval, adjusted to 43% presumably due to Rasmussen’s known, well-attested Republican bias.
I said it before earlier in this thread, and I’ll say it again:
One of the most important questions asked of Acting DNI Maguire in his open hearing before the House Intelligence Committee last week was whether the whistleblower’s complaint accurately described the conversation as represented in Trump’s call summary. He responded that it did. And Trump himself publicly stated that there was “nothing wrong with that call.”
It just doesn’t get any clearer that that.