House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment

[Flash]

An impeachment with a strict partisan vote is not a legitimate impeachment

What a silly thing to say. Repubs didn't refuse to vote for impeachment based on a lack of evidence. They refused to vote for impeachment in spite of a mountain of incriminating evidence. Why? Because they are simpering cowards who have sold their souls in the name of Trumpery.
Has any witness testimony or any other shred of evidence shown Trump is innocent of the charges in the AoI? No.

You are confused. There is no evidence. We all read the transcript of the telephone conversation and it was "perfect".

This was nothing more than Democrat dirty tricks. Even Tits Pelosi said that an impeachment along strict party lines is worthless.

The Democrats can't win the Presidency based on their terrible socialist polices so they have resorted to weaponizing the impeachment process and that is despicable. It is setting a terrible precedent. Now every time one party controls the House and another party controls the Presidency then there will be impeachments.

The filthy Democrats were butt hurt that their girl didn't win and they sure as hell don't like the fact that Trump is undoing a lot of the damage done by Obama. Trump is waylaying the Democrat agenda to turn this country into a socialist shithole and they hate it.

The Democrats will pay heavily for their partisan TDS afflicted hate come next November. Trump will win by a landslide, maintain the Seante and they will kick out man these idiot Democrat shitheads in the House that voted for the dirty tricks.

 

[berg80]

You are confused. There is no evidence. We all read the transcript of the telephone conversation and it was "perfect".

Sorry. There is no point in discussing this matter with someone like yourself who is in denial of objective reality.

 

[Nostra]

You are confused. There is no evidence. We all read the transcript of the telephone conversation and it was "perfect".

Sorry. There is no point in discussing this matter with someone like yourself who is in denial of objective reality.

The innerweb irony meter just exploded.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

Parnas was arrested just as the Ukranian Scandal broke, and initially both Lev and Igor refused to cooperate with prosecutorsand refused to provide information to the government. But then Dumb Donald did his usual "I don't even know these guys" disavowel he does whenever any of his minions get caught doing illegal shit.

Lev's feelings were incredibly hurt. He thought he had a special relationship with Trump. When Trump dissed him on national television, Lev got mad, changed lawyers, and started cooperating with the feds. This evidence is the result of Lev's hissy fit that Donnie didn't defend him.

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

According to who? Schifferbrains?

He need to testify in the Senate under oath.

Call Lev's lawyer to verify it, dope.

Please explain how this can be verified, Chowderhead.

By Parnas himself, dope.
Call him to testify and explain.

What would you like that criminal to say?

You asked how that document could be verified and I told you, dope.

 

[kyzr]

1. "Hearsay evidence" is NOT evidence, period. That has nothing to do with "impartiality" or their "oath", its simply the law as defined by senate rules. The senate has the "sole power to try" so they make the senate rules, just like the House made their House rules.

2. I'm not saying that the USSC rules on Article-2. I'm saying that the USSC killed Article-2 when they took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. If you don't read the articles I link, you don't know what you're talking about. Try again, read the articles, then reply:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

Hearsay can and very, very often is evidence. I think the Senate should apply the federal rules of evidence. That’s my opinion. They could refuse to evaluate any evidence for any reason, but if they do so as impartial defenders of Trump, as they are demonstrating many of them are doing, they will be in violation of their oath.

Alan Dershowitz is incorrect and you’re all over the map. You previously claimed this was about the “constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC.” There is no court that has any realm on determining the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. The Congress has plenary power. Dershowitz seems to think there is only one remedy to a president obstructing their investigation. He is being unnecessarily narrow and ignorant of other remedies the Constitution gives Congress.

1. Agree "hearsay" can be evidence, if allowed. However, it can be excluded legitimately, which you seem not to accept.

2. Not sure by what authority you presume to call Dershowitz wrong, he my be on Trump's team, and was a Harvard law professor??? My contention is that even though the House can impeach for any reason, constitutional or not, a crime or not, the senate can see thru the bullshit and acquit if they deem fit.

I never stated in any conclusive fashion that hearsay is always allowed. You, however, have stated it cannot be considered evidence.

I can call Dershowitz wrong if I want. It’s a free country. He’s made a career at help rich and famous people evade the consequences of their actions. He’s doing it again. If all you have is an appeal to authority, I guess you’ve run out of arguments.

The Senate can’t see through anything. The Republicans firmly have their eyes shut and trying to prevent having to see any evidence against Trump. They’re operating out of a desire to remain ignorant.

1. I'm assuming that the senate votes to exclude "all hearsay evidence". That basically removes Article-1 and the "abuse of power" claim.

2. You can call Dershowitz wrong, but most senators would value his opinion over yours. If you read both articles you see that the president does have the constitutional right to take the House subpoenas to court, and that is NOT IMPEACHABLE, it is NOT "obstruction of the House". Article 2 is DOA.

They can vote to remove all hearsay evidence if they choose. Doing so would be a violation of their oath of impartiality.

Dershowitz helped Epstein avoid paying for his actions. He got OJ off the hook for murder. Tell me why they should listen to him.

Show me where the Constitution says that Trump can fight subpoenas in court because I can show you where the Constitution says they can impeach him.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

 

[berg80]

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

Your not so clever attempt to avoid having to show the corroborated testimony of all 17 witnesses who testified in the House inquiry, all of whom contributed to the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt, can be disqualified as hearsay totally failed. Article 1 is very much alive.

 

[berg80]

Two New Staffers Destroy Trump’s ‘Hearsay’ Defense
Two New Staffers Destroy Trump’s ‘Hearsay’ Defense

It was less than a week ago when Republicans were telegraphing an audacious new defense of President Trump’s Ukraine extortion scheme. The whole caper, they were prepared to argue, had actually been masterminded by Gordon Sondland. The hotelier and foreign-policy novice, handed a plush ambassadorship to the European Union as a reward for a donation, had somehow gone out of his lane and taken over Ukraine policy from a cadre of experienced professionals — all without Trump’s knowledge or permission.

Sondland “made a presumption,” Ohio representative Jim Jordan told the media. “There is no direct linkage to the president of the United States,” added North Carolina representative Mark Meadows.

The sole advantage behind this fantastical explanation was Trump’s well-established, mob-like aversion to note-taking. The president would literally scream at anybody who took notes in his presence, leaving him plausible deniability when his subordinates carried out his frequently unethical or illegal orders.

Yesterday, however, William Taylor testified that a member of his staff heard Sondland, in Kiev on a cell phone, speaking with President Trump, and that Trump asked about Ukraine opening “investigations.” After the call, Sondland told the staffer, David Holmes, that Trump’s highest priority in Ukraine was securing an investigation of the Bidens. Today, the Associated Press reports a second staffer, Suriya Jayanti, also heard the call. “The President doesn’t care about Ukraine,” said Sondland, according to CNN, which obtained Holmes’s testimony, “He only cares about the big stuff – the big stuff that benefits him. You know, like investigating the Bidens.”

 

[Dana7360]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

Those documents also include evidence of Giuliani and some Ukraine men spying on Ambassador Yovanovitch. The documents give some indication of why she had to immediately leave the nation because of personal security.

 

[Nostra]

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

According to who? Schifferbrains?

He need to testify in the Senate under oath.

Call Lev's lawyer to verify it, dope.

Please explain how this can be verified, Chowderhead.

By Parnas himself, dope.
Call him to testify and explain.

What would you like that criminal to say?

You asked how that document could be verified and I told you, dope.

No, you didn't. He can't verify shit.

 

[Nostra]

Two New Staffers Destroy Trump’s ‘Hearsay’ Defense
Two New Staffers Destroy Trump’s ‘Hearsay’ Defense

It was less than a week ago when Republicans were telegraphing an audacious new defense of President Trump’s Ukraine extortion scheme. The whole caper, they were prepared to argue, had actually been masterminded by Gordon Sondland. The hotelier and foreign-policy novice, handed a plush ambassadorship to the European Union as a reward for a donation, had somehow gone out of his lane and taken over Ukraine policy from a cadre of experienced professionals — all without Trump’s knowledge or permission.

Sondland “made a presumption,” Ohio representative Jim Jordan told the media. “There is no direct linkage to the president of the United States,” added North Carolina representative Mark Meadows.

The sole advantage behind this fantastical explanation was Trump’s well-established, mob-like aversion to note-taking. The president would literally scream at anybody who took notes in his presence, leaving him plausible deniability when his subordinates carried out his frequently unethical or illegal orders.

Yesterday, however, William Taylor testified that a member of his staff heard Sondland, in Kiev on a cell phone, speaking with President Trump, and that Trump asked about Ukraine opening “investigations.” After the call, Sondland told the staffer, David Holmes, that Trump’s highest priority in Ukraine was securing an investigation of the Bidens. Today, the Associated Press reports a second staffer, Suriya Jayanti, also heard the call. “The President doesn’t care about Ukraine,” said Sondland, according to CNN, which obtained Holmes’s testimony, “He only cares about the big stuff – the big stuff that benefits him. You know, like investigating the Bidens.”

More hearsay.

 

[JustAGuy1]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

He didn't have it until recently. "House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy."

If you read what I posted you'd know that. Have any other uninformed comments?

So you can show where this is admissable?

 

[berg80]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

He didn't have it until recently. "House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy."

If you read what I posted you'd know that. Have any other uninformed comments?

So you can show where this is admissable?

Why wouldn't it be admissible? As I said earlier.............

You folks are just going to have to make up your minds. Is the Senate proceeding a legal trial or a political exercise? If the latter, hearsay..........especially that which is corroborated by multiple witness testimony...........,should absolutely be considered when deciding on Trump's guilt. If it's a legal proceeding then witness testimony is an essential part of a trial.

 

[Nostra]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

He didn't have it until recently. "House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy."

If you read what I posted you'd know that. Have any other uninformed comments?

So you can show where this is admissable?

Why wouldn't it be admissible? As I said earlier.............

You folks are just going to have to make up your minds. Is the Senate proceeding a legal trial or a political exercise? If the latter, hearsay..........especially that which is corroborated by multiple witness testimony...........,should absolutely be considered when deciding on Trump's guilt. If it's a legal proceeding then witness testimony is an essential part of a trial.

People having the same "feelings" isn't evidence, moron.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

"The materials show that Parnas, a Russian-speaker who helped coordinate Giuliani’s outreach to Ukrainian sources, was directly communicating with an array of top Ukrainian officials. Among them was Yuri Lutsenko, at the time Ukraine’s top prosecutor and a close political ally of then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who was running for reelection.

Lutsenko wanted to get rid of Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador, in part because she had been critical of his office and supported a quasi-independent anti-corruption bureau he despised.

The messages, written in Russian, show Lutsenko urging Parnas to force out Yovanovitch in exchange for cooperation regarding Biden. At one point, Lutsenko suggests he won’t make any helpful public statements unless “madam” is removed."

More evidence Yovanovitch was not removed because of any of the lies Giuliani made up, she was removed because she was an obstacle to the corrupt scheme Trump and Giuliani were working on.

Since you want to talk about proper legal procedure, I'll state an obvious problem with what you just posted. Unless Lutsenko agrees to appear in the US at the Senate trial to testify consistent with his supposed written statements (he's a foreigner and thus can't be compelled to appear via subpoena), none of that is going to see the light of day in the impeachment trial because those written statements are wholly inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 802. There is no way to authenticate those statements short of him testifying. In other words, this is nothing but a shiny object intended to stir up the rabble rousing, as those documents are unequivocally inadmissible and thus completely irrelevant to the Senate impeachment trial.

As shady as Schiff is, even he knows this. Won't stop them from playing it up in the media though.

 

[JustAGuy1]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

He didn't have it until recently. "House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy."

If you read what I posted you'd know that. Have any other uninformed comments?

So you can show where this is admissable?

Why wouldn't it be admissible? As I said earlier.............

You folks are just going to have to make up your minds. Is the Senate proceeding a legal trial or a political exercise? If the latter, hearsay..........especially that which is corroborated by multiple witness testimony...........,should absolutely be considered when deciding on Trump's guilt. If it's a legal proceeding then witness testimony is an essential part of a trial.

It's not a "Court" trial son. Schiff will only be able to use what was used in the impeachment hearings in the Senate. Everyone thinks it's like Judge Judy or something, it isn't. Schiff can only present the case they used to impeach him on, nothing more. Senators don't even get to speak during this, they get to sit on their hands and listen. when the House is done with their "case" Senators can then submit questions in writing to Judge Roberts. Nobody gets to yell "I OBJECT", O "LEADING THE WITNERSS YOURT HONOR". That's not what is happening here.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Dragonlady]

Hearsay can and very, very often is evidence. I think the Senate should apply the federal rules of evidence. That’s my opinion. They could refuse to evaluate any evidence for any reason, but if they do so as impartial defenders of Trump, as they are demonstrating many of them are doing, they will be in violation of their oath.

Alan Dershowitz is incorrect and you’re all over the map. You previously claimed this was about the “constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC.” There is no court that has any realm on determining the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. The Congress has plenary power. Dershowitz seems to think there is only one remedy to a president obstructing their investigation. He is being unnecessarily narrow and ignorant of other remedies the Constitution gives Congress.

1. Agree "hearsay" can be evidence, if allowed. However, it can be excluded legitimately, which you seem not to accept.

2. Not sure by what authority you presume to call Dershowitz wrong, he my be on Trump's team, and was a Harvard law professor??? My contention is that even though the House can impeach for any reason, constitutional or not, a crime or not, the senate can see thru the bullshit and acquit if they deem fit.

I never stated in any conclusive fashion that hearsay is always allowed. You, however, have stated it cannot be considered evidence.

I can call Dershowitz wrong if I want. It’s a free country. He’s made a career at help rich and famous people evade the consequences of their actions. He’s doing it again. If all you have is an appeal to authority, I guess you’ve run out of arguments.

The Senate can’t see through anything. The Republicans firmly have their eyes shut and trying to prevent having to see any evidence against Trump. They’re operating out of a desire to remain ignorant.

1. I'm assuming that the senate votes to exclude "all hearsay evidence". That basically removes Article-1 and the "abuse of power" claim.

2. You can call Dershowitz wrong, but most senators would value his opinion over yours. If you read both articles you see that the president does have the constitutional right to take the House subpoenas to court, and that is NOT IMPEACHABLE, it is NOT "obstruction of the House". Article 2 is DOA.

They can vote to remove all hearsay evidence if they choose. Doing so would be a violation of their oath of impartiality.

Dershowitz helped Epstein avoid paying for his actions. He got OJ off the hook for murder. Tell me why they should listen to him.

Show me where the Constitution says that Trump can fight subpoenas in court because I can show you where the Constitution says they can impeach him.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

 

[colfax_m]

1. Agree "hearsay" can be evidence, if allowed. However, it can be excluded legitimately, which you seem not to accept.

2. Not sure by what authority you presume to call Dershowitz wrong, he my be on Trump's team, and was a Harvard law professor??? My contention is that even though the House can impeach for any reason, constitutional or not, a crime or not, the senate can see thru the bullshit and acquit if they deem fit.

I never stated in any conclusive fashion that hearsay is always allowed. You, however, have stated it cannot be considered evidence.

I can call Dershowitz wrong if I want. It’s a free country. He’s made a career at help rich and famous people evade the consequences of their actions. He’s doing it again. If all you have is an appeal to authority, I guess you’ve run out of arguments.

The Senate can’t see through anything. The Republicans firmly have their eyes shut and trying to prevent having to see any evidence against Trump. They’re operating out of a desire to remain ignorant.

1. I'm assuming that the senate votes to exclude "all hearsay evidence". That basically removes Article-1 and the "abuse of power" claim.

2. You can call Dershowitz wrong, but most senators would value his opinion over yours. If you read both articles you see that the president does have the constitutional right to take the House subpoenas to court, and that is NOT IMPEACHABLE, it is NOT "obstruction of the House". Article 2 is DOA.

They can vote to remove all hearsay evidence if they choose. Doing so would be a violation of their oath of impartiality.

Dershowitz helped Epstein avoid paying for his actions. He got OJ off the hook for murder. Tell me why they should listen to him.

Show me where the Constitution says that Trump can fight subpoenas in court because I can show you where the Constitution says they can impeach him.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Fun fact. The transcript actually is hearsay evidence. Hearsay refers to any statements made outside of a court. The transcript documents a conversation made outside of court and therefore counts as hearsay. It would be allowed under exceptions but this other poster doesn’t want any exceptions so that’s out the window.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

1. Agree "hearsay" can be evidence, if allowed. However, it can be excluded legitimately, which you seem not to accept.

2. Not sure by what authority you presume to call Dershowitz wrong, he my be on Trump's team, and was a Harvard law professor??? My contention is that even though the House can impeach for any reason, constitutional or not, a crime or not, the senate can see thru the bullshit and acquit if they deem fit.

I never stated in any conclusive fashion that hearsay is always allowed. You, however, have stated it cannot be considered evidence.

I can call Dershowitz wrong if I want. It’s a free country. He’s made a career at help rich and famous people evade the consequences of their actions. He’s doing it again. If all you have is an appeal to authority, I guess you’ve run out of arguments.

The Senate can’t see through anything. The Republicans firmly have their eyes shut and trying to prevent having to see any evidence against Trump. They’re operating out of a desire to remain ignorant.

1. I'm assuming that the senate votes to exclude "all hearsay evidence". That basically removes Article-1 and the "abuse of power" claim.

2. You can call Dershowitz wrong, but most senators would value his opinion over yours. If you read both articles you see that the president does have the constitutional right to take the House subpoenas to court, and that is NOT IMPEACHABLE, it is NOT "obstruction of the House". Article 2 is DOA.

They can vote to remove all hearsay evidence if they choose. Doing so would be a violation of their oath of impartiality.

Dershowitz helped Epstein avoid paying for his actions. He got OJ off the hook for murder. Tell me why they should listen to him.

Show me where the Constitution says that Trump can fight subpoenas in court because I can show you where the Constitution says they can impeach him.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sonland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sonland saying this from his own lips:

 

[colfax_m]

1. Agree "hearsay" can be evidence, if allowed. However, it can be excluded legitimately, which you seem not to accept.

2. Not sure by what authority you presume to call Dershowitz wrong, he my be on Trump's team, and was a Harvard law professor??? My contention is that even though the House can impeach for any reason, constitutional or not, a crime or not, the senate can see thru the bullshit and acquit if they deem fit.

I never stated in any conclusive fashion that hearsay is always allowed. You, however, have stated it cannot be considered evidence.

I can call Dershowitz wrong if I want. It’s a free country. He’s made a career at help rich and famous people evade the consequences of their actions. He’s doing it again. If all you have is an appeal to authority, I guess you’ve run out of arguments.

The Senate can’t see through anything. The Republicans firmly have their eyes shut and trying to prevent having to see any evidence against Trump. They’re operating out of a desire to remain ignorant.

1. I'm assuming that the senate votes to exclude "all hearsay evidence". That basically removes Article-1 and the "abuse of power" claim.

2. You can call Dershowitz wrong, but most senators would value his opinion over yours. If you read both articles you see that the president does have the constitutional right to take the House subpoenas to court, and that is NOT IMPEACHABLE, it is NOT "obstruction of the House". Article 2 is DOA.

They can vote to remove all hearsay evidence if they choose. Doing so would be a violation of their oath of impartiality.

Dershowitz helped Epstein avoid paying for his actions. He got OJ off the hook for murder. Tell me why they should listen to him.

Show me where the Constitution says that Trump can fight subpoenas in court because I can show you where the Constitution says they can impeach him.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sonland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sonland saying this from his own lips:

Republicans: None of the witnesses have direct first hand knowledge.

Dems: So let’s talk to witnesses with direct first hand knowledge.

Republicans: No.

 

[j-mac]

If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

Parnas was arrested just as the Ukranian Scandal broke, and initially both Lev and Igor refused to cooperate with prosecutorsand refused to provide information to the government. But then Dumb Donald did his usual "I don't even know these guys" disavowel he does whenever any of his minions get caught doing illegal shit.

Lev's feelings were incredibly hurt. He thought he had a special relationship with Trump. When Trump dissed him on national television, Lev got mad, changed lawyers, and started cooperating with the feds. This evidence is the result of Lev's hissy fit that Donnie didn't defend him.

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

According to who? Schifferbrains?

He need to testify in the Senate under oath.

Call Lev's lawyer to verify it, dope.

Democrats are the ones making the claim, it's up to them to prove that claim....

They made no claim, dope.
They informed the media where the documents came from. You not believing them is not their problem.

Certainly Schiff does not need to testify to verify the veracity of those documents.

Oh he has to testify, not only to that, but for much, much more...That little weasel needs to be exposed.