POLL: Why is this "impeachment hearing" REALLY happening?

[JimZipCode]

Oh, I realize that, but the Turtle is on record saying he will hold a trial in the Senate if the House impeaches.

I just caught that! Very nice. All hail the were-turtle.

[NCRAVEN]

First hand testimony is admissible and theres been loads of it thus far.

You’re confusing hearsay with first hand testimony me thinks.

I did not hear anyone say they heard from Trump of a quid pro quo. Maybe I just missed it.

[NCRAVEN]

You & Darb should stop asking me if I have any; I personally got nothing. Zilch. Not a thing.



ALL of the witness testimony we saw this week would be admissible in a court of law.

and

Stop trying to apply your detailed knowledge of criminal procedure from watching Law & Order. Neither an impeachment hearing, nor a Senate trial, are a court of law. The evidentiary standards we are used to from TV do not apply.

Shocker. Another petty insult you think is so witty.

Of course I know YOU don’t have any. I’m asking for what you think you say or heard that leads you to believe as you do.

Can you share that with us?

[JimZipCode]

Again, you have no evidence. None.

True. I have nothing.

Literally every witness that has appeared in front of the House has produced nothing but hearsay and presumptions. Sondland even said, under oath, that Trump said he didn't want anything, wanted no quid pro quo.

Trump's counsel will no doubt raise those points during his Senate trial.

[SpaceCityRaven]

I did not hear anyone say they heard from Trump of a quid pro quo. Maybe I just missed it.

Straw man argument that y’all are beating a dead horse with like it’s actually a standard worth mentioning. It’s clear by the first hand testimony (perfectly legal in court and in these hearings) everything ran through Rudy.

You know what word was never uttered by Trump on that call or heard by anyone before this investigation? Corruption.

For a man so hell bent on being the champion for defeating corruption in the Ukraine, he has a funny way of showing it.

[JimZipCode]

There is no first hand testimony.

Vindman was on the famous call. Jenn Williams was also on that call. Sondland was instructed directly by Trump to coordinate with Giuliani; then received some instructions directly from Guiliani. Later spoke directly with Trump about whether Zelensky was gonna do the investigation.

[NCRAVEN]

Straw man argument that y’all are beating a dead horse with like it’s actually a standard worth mentioning. It’s clear by the first hand testimony (perfectly legal in court and in these hearings) everything ran through Rudy.

You know what word was never uttered by Trump on that call or heard by anyone before this investigation? Corruption.

For a man so hell bent on being the champion for defeating corruption in the Ukraine, he has a funny way of showing it.

It’s not a strawman. No one heard it from Rudy either. Again, not that I heard. I haven’t watched all the hearings.

[CarrollCoRaven]

It’s not a strawman. No one heard it from Rudy either. Again, not that I heard. I haven’t watched all the hearings.

Not many have. I sure haven't. I got better things to do then to sit through that shit show. I don't believe it going to change anyone's opinion, if they're even able to stay awake during it. It sure hasn't here in the LID.

[SpaceCityRaven]

It’s not a strawman. No one heard it from Rudy either. Again, not that I heard. I haven’t watched all the hearings.

Clearly.

[JimZipCode]

I’m asking for what you think you say or heard that leads you to believe as you do.

Let me hold off on that for a second, and ask you a procedural question:


Are you familiar with the metaphor likening impeachment to a criminal proceeding? In that model, the Impeachment resolution from the House would represent an indictment; and the trial in the Senate is, well, the trial. You've heard that one before, I think.

What is the evidentiary standard for an indictment? Any idea?

[NCRAVEN]

Clearly.

Hey I don’t have all day to sit around and watch it. If you were able to fill me on who heard that from Rudy.

[NCRAVEN]

Let me hold off on that for a second, and ask you a procedural question:


Are you familiar with the metaphor likening impeachment to a criminal proceeding? In that model, the Impeachment resolution from the House would represent an indictment; and the trial in the Senate is, well, the trial. You've heard that one before, I think.

What is the evidentiary standard for an indictment? Any idea?

Sorry Jim. You first.