Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence which prohibits admitting testimony or documents into evidence when the statements contained therein are offered to prove their truth and the maker of the statements is not able to testify about it in court. Hearsay is "second-hand" information. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to give testimony, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine him or her. Therefore, there is a constitutional due process danger that it deprives the other side of an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the "real" witness who originally saw or heard something."
President Trump has already offered a redacted text (Note: not a transcript) of the phone conversation, which he stands by as 'perfect'. Trump is allowed to make his case if he so chooses. He can present documents and witnesses, thus far he as refused to do so.
This is what the speaker of the House was referring to when she called upon the president to offer up exculpatory evidence.
Further, there are first hand witnesses to the phone call, and (as it now turns out) witnesses to other phone calls and meetings wherein the 'something for something' details of the damands were discussed. There are also people testifying to their own actions, and what they understood their own actions to mean, some of these people were appointed by Donald Trump himself or Mike Pompeo directly.
There has still to this day not been given a cogent answer to why the aid to Ukraine was held up, and we are now learning that dozens, perhaps hundreds of people in the Pentagon and the State department were struggling mightily to get answers as to whom ordered the freeze on aid and why. No response whatever was given, but it has been learned (thus far) that the order ultimately came through white house chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
That's ok, Republicans in the senate don't believe is voting for a SCOTUS justice a year prior to a presidential election. They believe in stalling the vote until after the newly elected are sworn in. That's how they do it now. Unless they are hypocrites.
I do not claim to know all of the ins and outs of a Senate removal trial, but it is my understanding that Trump's attorneys may call rebuttal witnesses but that the Senators themselves have no power to do so. I'm not sure Graham is doing anything here but throwing red meat to the uninformed.
How does calling Adam Schiff help the President? The problem for the President is not Shifty Schiff or the whistle blower, its Trumps own actions . . . .
No, Trump's actions are not the problem. It's the false framing of them that is the problem, and calling Schiff to testify will help to expose this fact.
The subterfuge of having Ciaramella pretend to be a whistleblower, the collusion of the IC inspector general, and Schiff's actions in coordinating this scam demonstrate that Schiff himself doesn't think Trump did anything impeachable. If Trump anything impeachable, Schiff wouldn't have felt the need to lend the accusations legitimacy by running them through a corrupt inspector general. If someone is guilty, you don't have to frame him.
Last edited by hbdwihdh378y9; 11-15-2019 at 10:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.