You should be confident with your case and the evidence you've gathered if you're proceeding with it.

The evidence was lackluster and poor. Democrats flopped hard.

Bolton's testimony should be the cherry on top, not the basis of the impeachment. Lol.



They don't proceed with a court proceeding unless the prosecutors are confident in the case and the evidence they have gathered when it's a serious case like homicide. They want to avoid having to risk Double jeopardy, so they will wait to prosecute until they reach that level of confidence.

I would classify impeachment as a pretty serious thing considering the amount of time and resources that have been lost due to this sham.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 04:20pm

This is flat out wrong. You don't enter the discovery phase of a trial until somebody has been charged. You can gather evidence before that, but the time when evidence is vetted, most official testimony is taken, etc. is during discovery, which is after you've been charged but before the trial. The standard for being charged is probable cause, not a strong case.



The impeachment doesn't map 1:1 with a traditional trial, but there's absolutely nothing stopping the senate from hearing more testimony and gathering more evidence, either in favor of Trump or against him.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 1 2020 04:23pm

They don't charge someone unless they are confident that they at least have a reasonable chance at winning the case. They certainly aren't going to charge a person based on hearsay evidence when it's something serious. That might make them a suspect, but they certainly are not going to proceed based on that.

Hearsay evidence is such a weak form of evidence.
Not likely to lead to probable cause in itself.

The transcript basically provided nothing.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 04:28pm

Wow, pretty much everything you've said is just fundamentally wrong.

They will charge somebody they can establish probable cause on, and continue investigating during the discovery phase of trial.

Hearsay evidence probably includes 99% of evidence you yourself would consider conclusive. If you had a video recording of the event, that is hearsay and requires an established hearsay exception to get in as evidence. A recording of the person admitting he did the crime and how is hearsay evidence and requires a hearsay exception to enter evidence.

Hearsay evidence, if there is a reasonable chance it can get in under a hearsay exception, will establish probable cause.

Most cases aren't won with a single smoking gun, they're won with several lines of independent evidence that would likely be considered hearsay, but get in under hearsay exception, and while weak individually come together to paint a larger picture that is hard to dispute.



The transcript provided was admitted to not be complete last I read about it. Trump specifically had the actual recording of the call moved to a server that was more secure than it needed to be so he could avoid having the actual recording come out.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 1 2020 04:30pm

Boo hoo. Dems try to overturn an election and.... fail.

No it isn't. I'm reading about the Hearsay Rule right now.

"Hearsay defined

Although the term itself may seem self-explanatory, there is more to the hearsay rule than is covered on Perry Mason. Broadly defined, "hearsay" is testimony or documents quoting people who are not present in court, and hearsay evidence is inadmissible for lack of a firsthand witness. When the person being quoted is not present, establishing credibility becomes impossible, as does cross-examination."

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 04:38pm

What is and isn't hearsay ultimately depends on what court you are in, but in general business documents, recordings, videos, and pictures that are taken outside of court are hearsay and require validation by a person under oath who has the ability to testify to the validity of the evidence.

You're correct, I stand corrected on that. Based on what I've read.

However, this evidence certainly was not to the standard of others. Secondhand witness reports were the trial argument.

That is normal when just deciding to charge somebody. You generally can't subpoena witnesses to testify under oath until somebody has been formally charged.



This is a unique situation with regards to impeachment. The last two modern impeachments had independent investigations and so there wasn't a need to bring in further witnesses. They were already recorded under oath. In this case since that was absent it's up to each chamber of the house to conduct the investigation, and the senate basically abdicated that responsibility.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 1 2020 04:48pm

Which, the subpoenaed witnesses delivered secondhand witness reports.
I watched basically 90% of the Congress hearings, there was nothing.

It was obvious it was going to be easily plucked apart by Trump's legal team.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 04:52pm