If we were doing a real trial then every single witness that Trump wanted to block would have come in months ago, as would the recording of the phone call, and Trump's team would be charged with withholding evidence.

This isn't a real court obviously, but that's exactly what would have happened if this was a real case and not an impeachment.

That doesn't change the fact that the standard of evidence between grand jury and court trial are significantly different. Prosecutors aren't required to call all witnesses in a grand jury hearing. The only thing they're required to do is present any potentially exculpatory evidence in their possession, since there is no cross examination in grand jury proceedings. They have to present enough of a case to show that there is/was probable cause that the defendant may have committed the crime being investigation. That burden of proof isn't enough for the criminal trial, so additional witnesses/evidence are gathered and presented to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

What have we seen that creates Probable Cause?

Because it sure as hell wasn't the transcript or the second hand witness reports.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 05:04pm

The transcript is on a classified server. The public hasn’t ever seen it.

But we saw the transcript at the moments when he mentioned Burizma/Biden. We aren't going to see every piece of information exchanged, that's going to be highly confidential if it doesn't pertain to the issue at hand. Foreign leaders will be increasingly skeptic if the information they exchange isn't kept confidential.

Why wouldn't Schiff want the whistle blower to testify?
That evidence would certainly have much more potential for strength and validity than what we've seen. It makes zero sense.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 05:12pm

You don't get to support the confidentiality of the transcript and simultaneously bash the transcript for lack of evidentiary value.

Yes I do. Lol. Considering the released transcript was part of the force for driving the impeachment forward.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 05:13pm

Well said.

If the majority is confidential and you haven't seen it, how can you claim that it didn't present probable cause? You're trying to have your cake and eat it, and this is where that can go:



This post was edited by Surfpunk on Feb 1 2020 05:16pm

The transcript isn't the recording, and we have reason to think the transcript was compromised.

There isn't a need to show the public the private recordings, it can be shown to members of congress on the senate intelligence committee and they can give their take.

The whistleblower is not relevant. Imagine if I went to the police station and said "Tony said that Jeff said he killed a man". It might start an investigation, but I wouldn't have been close enough to the situation to warrant getting under oath to testify. Tony might, and Jeff definitely is, but I'm not.