All he knows is hearsay, why would the whistleblower...

[Nordberg]

"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."

You guys are going full Trump. he does that "people say' or "lots of people have told me or asked me'. That is utterly unacceptable in a debate. Show your sources.
The talk about Hunter is in right-wing blogs and misinformation papers. It is a weightless argument.

[Truth Detector]

The Congress decides what is impeachable by a majority vote, not Schiff alone. Who do you think the Constitution says should decide?

Attempting an impeachment with baseless hearsay and ZERO support from the other side is a waste of taxpayer money, divides the nation and accomplishes nothing.

What did these same HYPOCRITES say about Clinton's impeachment where actual crimes were investigated and committed?

Jerry Nadler | We're Lowering the Standard of Impeachment

[Flash]

You guys are going full Trump. he does that "people say' or "lots of people have told me or asked me'. That is utterly unacceptable in a debate. Show your sources. The talk about Hunter is in right-wing blogs and misinformation papers. It is a weightless argument.

The source is the phone transcript.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...ied09.2019.pdf

I don't get the point of your post. Mine was to show Trump did ask Zelensky to investigate Biden.

[Truth Detector]

"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."

That is not directed a Biden you putz. Good lord, is everyone on the left this stupid? Did Trump put any conditions on Zelenskyy? If you answer yes, Zelenskyy says you are a liar.

[Truth Detector]

"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."

You guys are going full Trump. he does that "people say' or "lots of people have told me or asked me'. That is utterly unacceptable in a debate. Show your sources.
The talk about Hunter is in right-wing blogs and misinformation papers. It is a weightless argument.

^^ Clueless Moron doesn't know Flash is arguing his case.

[Truth Detector]

The source is the phone transcript.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...ied09.2019.pdf

I don't get the point of your post. Mine was to show Trump did ask Zelensky to investigate Biden.

Which you failed to do. NordTard is a clueless hack.

[Callinectes]

[QUOTE=Jarod;3352859]

The Congress decides what is impeachable by a majority vote, not Schiff alone. Who do you think the Constitution says should decide?

This is what I just posted to the flasher:

Bullshit, they get a menu to order off of called the articles of impeachment, no substitutions. And no item gets on or off that menu without the approval of chef Boy-R-U-A pencil neck. The absolute BEST outcome for the jackass party right now would be for pelosi to call each dem house member and order each one to vote so the final tally is close, but it's a vote not to impeach. If you're lucky, that may create the illusion that at least some of you have not completely gone bat shit crazy

They vote on the articles of impeachment. I contend that even if in their dark little jackass hearts they know this whole thing is a huge cluster fuck, they'll vote to impeach, evidence or not. They are all gone off the deep end

[Callinectes]

[QUOTE=Flash;3352924]

And each member decides whether each article is impeachable and/or whether there is enough evidence to support it and votes based on their own determination.

Yeah, it's called a "vote". What's your point?

[Flash]

That is not directed a Biden you putz. Good lord, is everyone on the left this stupid? Did Trump put any conditions on Zelenskyy? If you answer yes, Zelenskyy says you are a liar.

Learn to read. Nowhere did I say he put any conditions on it. I only claimed he asked Zelensky to investigate a political opponent. The president wanted him to look into the accusations that (Joe) Biden stopped the prosecution. That is clear from Trump's own words.

[Flash]

[QUOTE=Callinectes Ocasio-Cortez;3353021]

Yeah, it's called a "vote". What's your point?

The point is that each House member, not Schiff, is determining whether each article is an impeachable offense and whether there is sufficient evidence to support it.

[Flash]

Which you failed to do. NordTard is a clueless hack.

"...that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it..."

Looking into the charge that Biden stopped the prosecution. What is he asking Zelensky to do?

[christiefan915]

1)Congressional hearings are conducted far differently than court trials.
2)In court, hearsay is generally forbidden while a hearing adds the right to confront witnesses.

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule

There are two main articles with it comes to hearsay exceptions: (1) when the declarant is unavailable, and (2) when the availability of the declarant does not matter.
Exceptions When the Declarant is Unavailable

• Declaration against interest – a statement that would only incriminate the witness so it can be reasonably assumed that the statement is true, or the witness would not have stated it.
• Dying declaration – a person’s last words before dying may be admitted in some cases.

When the Availability of the Declarant Does not Matter

• Excited utterance – a statement made in immediate response to a shocking or startling event.
• Present sense impression – a spontaneous statement that communicates the declarant’s sense of the condition of something, or the state of an event. Such a statement must be made during or immediately following the event.

The Catchall Rule

The rules of hearsay evidence leave a number of situations to the discretion of the court. Simply put, the catchall rule does not require proof that the witness is unable to testify if the hearsay evidence meets certain conditions:

• It has a sound element of trustworthiness
• It is used to help prove materials facts
• It more adequately answers a question than other reasonably obtainable evidence
• The admission of the hearsay evidence will advance the cause of justice
• Other parties in the case have been notified that the hearsay will be offered into evidence

• Declarations of Present State of Mind – a statement of the declarant’s “present state of mind” at the time of the event may be admissible as proof of the declarant’s intent.
  

https://legaldictionary.net/hearsay-evidence/

[Truth Detector]

Learn to read. Nowhere did I say he put any conditions on it. I only claimed he asked Zelensky to investigate a political opponent.

The president wanted him to look into the accusations that (Joe) Biden stopped the prosecution. That is clear from Trump's own words.

You were wrong; he did not ask anyone to investigate Biden. Biden was mentioned in passing. The request was regarding Burisma.

Let me ask you something, do you really think that the coincidence that Biden is running for the nomination precludes the FACT that Biden interfered with an investigation and his son was a potential beneficiary?

“In retrospect, look, I think that it was poor judgment on my part,” the younger Biden said. “Is that I think that it was poor judgment because I don’t believe now when I look back on it — I know that there was — did nothing wrong at all. However, was it poor judgment to be in the middle of something that is a swamp in—in—in many ways? Yeah.”
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019...ethical-lapse/

[Micawber]

Quick say something else stupid.

[Truth Detector]

The point is that each House member, not Schiff, is determining whether each article is an impeachable offense and whether there is sufficient evidence to support it.

Not in reality. The Republicans can all say it is a bunch of shit and the Democrats can pass it along a narrow majority. Schiff is indeed the one determining what will get voted on. He is controlling, or trying to, the narrative to fit his partisan agenda. He is controlling who is a witness. He is controlling what questions get asked. He is controlling who the Republicans can call as witnesses.

Schiff, for all intents and purposes, is the judge, the jury and the decider. What makes this a partisan clown show is Schiff's OBVIOUS biased view and predetermination of guilt as illustrated by his opening statements:

Disloyalty to country. Those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent, which did not publicly shun it, or turn it away, but which instead invited it, encouraged it, and made full use of it?

This also a story about money, about greed and corruption, about the leadership of a campaign willing to compromise the nation’s interest not only to win, but to make money at the same time.

About a campaign chairman indebted to pro-Russian interests who tried to use his position to clear his debts and make millions. About a national security advisor using his position to make money from still other foreign interests.

And about a candidate trying to make more money than all of them, through a real estate project that to him, was worth a fortune, hundreds of millions of dollars, and the realization of a lifelong ambition – a Trump Tower in the heart of Moscow.

A candidate who, in fact, viewed his whole campaign as the greatest infomercial in history.

Donald Trump and his senior staff were not alone in their desire to use the election to make money. For Russia, too, there was a powerful financial motive. Putin wanted relief from U.S. economic sanctions imposed in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and over human rights violations.

There is no impartiality in that statement. There is no effort to disguise Schiff's misplaced contempt and malice for this President. There is nothing right or fair about this process. There is no proof of wrong doing. There is no crime.