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.
Is that what you call direct evidence or hand-me down hearsay ? He/she/it is the original accuser and the defendant has a right to face their accuser !!! If not lets not even talk about fair !!!
Shifty Schiff needs to testify too !!!
This whistleblower is not an "accuser" in the criminal context. Try again...
Because the fact pattern has shown, Schiff's and his staff's direct involvement with, Atkinson and Eric Cairamella the whistle blower, in collusion.
I appreciate you answering that. I'm glad to see that someone can formulate an actual reply to my question on, even if I miight not agree with it. No one seems wiling to answer the Joe Biden question though and even less on Hunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
The prosecutor interviews witnesses and brings an indictment. The Senate is not the prosecutor, but the Jury. The Jury sits and listens to the prosecutors allegations and the defendants rebuttal. Nothing else. Or the House would not be needed for impeachment.
Except in this case Trump would not allow the witnesses the House wanted
What do the Bidens have to do with Trump's impeachment? What cn they add to the trial? I'm all for opening an investigation into them to see how dirty they may be. I'm just not sure why folks think their testimony is relevant here. And I see the right is still triggered about the whistleblower even though his points have been testified upon by several witnesses already
The claim is Trump withheld aid to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens with the underlying premise that such an investigation would be purely political.
But if the Bidens actually were engaging in corrupt enterprise in Ukraine this investigation would be consistent with existing policy of rooting out corruption in recipients of US aid.
How is Biden a direct witness? Was he in on the call Trump made to Ukraine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
For that matter, how is Schiff a witness in the trial?
Biden is as direct a witnesses as there is in this case, but that has been explained many times on here.
As far as Schiff,
Lets say you have a police office pull you over, then breaks your car's tail light for justification for pulling you over.
You would agree that the police office is a critical direct witness for the defense to question, no?
Well, same thing with Schiff, we need to know what role he played in starting this impeachment.
The bottom line is this, why would Republican agree to witnesses when some of the direct witnesses that the White House would want have already stated they will not testify?
The claim is Trump withheld aid to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens with the underlying premise that such an investigation would be purely political.
But if the Bidens actually were engaging in corrupt enterprise in Ukraine this investigation would be consistent with existing policy of rooting out corruption in recipients of US aid.
I get that last part and that maybe an investigation is warranted. But I don't see the relevancy in Trump's trial. Biden's guilt or innocence bears no consequence on Trump's guilt or innocence.
The idea that Trump’s guilt or innocence hinges on whether Joe Biden acted in accordance with US interests in 2014 is not only stupid beyond words, but something Trump supporters better hope is not true.
The idea that Trump’s guilt or innocence hinges on whether Joe Biden acted in accordance with US interests in 2014 is not only stupid beyond words, but something Trump supporters better hope is not true.
This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
If there was legitimate reason to believe there was possible illegal activity with Burisma/Bidens (there was), then that is compelling evidence that President Trump was not acting for personal gain.
Let me bottom line this for anyone that has trouble grasping legal concepts.
The democrats failed to conclusively prove a link between aid, and an investigation.
All evidence presented that alleged the aid was held for an investigation was 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th hand information.
All the direct evidence refutes the claims that aid was held for an investigation.
No other evidence was presented, or even alleged, that President Trump acted for personal gain.
The democrats were not even able to conclusively prove one single piece of circumstantial evidence (aid linked to an investigation).
The dems never even got to first base to proving that the President acted for personal gain, let alone proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.
This, in a nut shell is why there is no possibility that President Trump will be convicted in the Senate trial.
I appreciate you answering that. I'm glad to see that someone can formulate an actual reply to my question on, even if I miight not agree with it. No one seems wiling to answer the Joe Biden question though and even less on Hunter
Except in this case Trump would not allow the witnesses the House wanted
Good thing there are 3 branches to check the others. Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler, didn't want to bother the Judicial.
I agree, that's why it's important to have Adam Schiff, and Joe Biden agree to testify, both are direct witnesses.
How are they direct witnesses to what Trump did? They weren't there when he placed that "perfect" call.
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.
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.
