if we follow typical analogy. the case would have been thrown out by the judge. refer to post #1946 for examples.

https://www.wikihow.com/Get-Evidence-Thrown-out-in-Court

Put the french article in google translate without doing a re-check. I identified the failure as: "stick grenade", or "potato masher" in British Army slang.

Bad news seems to be that Trump will not allow Bolton to testify, seems blatantly illegal or unjustified to me, especially when the information is not really related to national security.

I'm curious how Trump cultists will defend Trump opposition to Bolton testimony, they will probably simply dodge by posting half-twitter half-meme content.

no sufficient evidence?! trump's own administration officials testified that it was clear as day how he pressured ukraine to get dirt on the bidens. just because the trump cult chooses to cover their ears, eyes, and 'brains', doesn't mean that somewhat reasonable people don't realise what actually happened.

that's the same kind of ignorance that followed the russia investigation: idiots on the right claiming it was 'nothing' even though the report unmistakenly demonstrated how trump invited and welcomed foreign help in the 2016 elections, and then lied and obstructed justice in order to cover it up.

It isn't the judge who decides if theres enough evidence in grand jury cases, its the grand jury, who in this case are the house. None of your evidence exceptions apply because we simply arent at the point where evidence is being brought in yet.

this is a lot of semantics if we continue. my point is that this is little like a legal court, it only shares "some" of the framework.
the jury in this case would be the senate, not the house. but the defendant would also have the opportunity to choose judge over jury.
in this case, the house is the prosecuting and defending legal teams. which is why it's a big deal when one side was prevented the right to call witnesses, or cross-examine in entirety. (linked above)

the senate would play jury and that's where the trial takes place. although, it would be overturned in a heartbeat due to the obvious bias of both sides. a judge normally doesn't interfere in "rulings" of a jury, but they can with reason.(not important, but that's how it is)

@bold- even with "only" the samples i used in above post, the senate(judge/jury) will strike all of what they consider to be faulty evidence.
nearly the whole thing is "hear-say" evidence. everything is levied on Sondland, and let me remind you the only actual direct testimonial evidence i'm aware of besides the trasncript with Trump/Zelensky...
is this.


i'll also state that witnesses are called and cross-examined in discovery. "discovery" would be the job of the house. (in true court setting fashion at least)

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Jan 11 2020 03:12pm

That's not the argument. The House found the evidence sufficient enough to vote to impeach, and there's no legitimate reason why new evidence or testimony couldn't be presented at the Senate trial. You have no leg to stand on Constitutionally... anyone who opposes more relevant evidence and testimony has to admit that they do so simply because they are Trump partisans.

Believe it or not, it's possible to support a politician while simultaneously having viewpoints separate from them. Matt Gaetz provided an example of that this week by voting for the war powers resolution.





This post was edited by IceMage on Jan 11 2020 06:03pm

then answer the 1 question i actually asked...

right now the examples are rather 1-sided.

adding in about Gaetz. he voted for Congress to keep their powers. you may have forgotten, but the drone strike was in "Iraq" against an individual "Obama" listed as a terrorist.
"terrorist" is more than just a scary word, it's also a legal term.

what was voted on has nothing to do with the actions taken by trump.

Gaetz voted correctly though imo, i have to read up a little more, but i think this should have been bi-partisan from what i currently understand.

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Jan 11 2020 06:14pm

The Senate has complete authority here. The only avenue to influence the Senate is via the public, and the Democrats have failed to convince.

It's time to do a reckoning and figure out what genius thought this was a better use of time than presenting a viable alternative to Trump.

Yeah McConnell squished it thoroughly. Don't get to see The Speaker get admonished very often.

I'm seriously so sick of hearing about impeachment already; it's a fringe proposition that stands no chance at getting through the Senate. It's this year's Bill Clinton (gets impeached on some bullshit but loses in the Senate by a landslide).