Criminal rules of evidence and procedure don't apply to impeachment, but fwiw there are twenty or so exceptions to the hearsay rule. One of them is conversations in furtherance of a criminal scheme.
Trump has prevented people with first hand knowledge from testifying and withheld do ents relevant to the inquiry.
The subpoenas for a couple of them were recently dropped so they wouldn't have to go to court.
My guess is that that denial of the executive of the legislative power itself will be another article of impeachment, and that the subpoenas were dropped so that they could be added.
Are Rep Meadows and Stewart really this stupid or are they just playing to ignorant partisans like Chrissy?
Chris, its time to make your peace. Despite our differences, you're ST family.
I never said she was bad at her job. Trump could remove her if he thought she was good at her job, she serves at the leisure of the President.
What did she do to get recalled?
I mean she spent two full terms as ambassador in different countries under Republican and Democratic presidents.
So what did she do to get canned before her term was up in Ukraine?
She serves at the liesure[sic] of whatever crook is shoving money in Rudy Guliani's hands.
Next week is gonna be lit.
I want to hear from this guy Sondland. That should be it for Trump when he confirms it.
Your guess is wrong.
Schiff dropped them so the House wouldn’t have to go to court. Judge Leon said nope see ya in court.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiffs....co/mascSl8cSD
In your opinion, what part of what he said was intimidating? And with what intent to influence? He already canned her ass.
not interested in what op-ed is behind the paywall.
She is still a federal employee, genius.
Why was she recalled?
What you have here, is another item in a well-established pattern of criminal obstruction of justice and witness tampering.FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”
SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.
FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government”.
He can't help himself, just like you can't help but make excuses even when he does it right in front of you, you dishonest piece of .
Longest HR exit interview, ever
Sondland already said Trump never told him the military aid wasn’t dependent on investigations and that he just presumed it was. Next week you’ll hear him say the same...so lit!
you,actually i left after my last reply but i see you stayed behind to scream at the sky.
yall are all the same tbh... always pointing the finger at trump supporters and those who are in the middle and want nothing to do with yall's commie agenda yet when we prod and poke yall cry foul.
either way, we'll all get to witness how this sham impeachment goes. idc to have a back and forth with you any longer seeing how you've dived off the deep end and refuse to answer simple questions but demand answers from me.
are a liar
You ask for a link, I gave it to you.
I ask you for a link on your lie concerning Obama, you have nothing.
Damn right you dont want to actually confront facts.
You have no idea what is going on.
I asked you some of the simplest questions imaginable about this ordeal and you had no answer. You dont have a clue what is going on.
I can copy and paste too! Except only one of us is avoiding direct questions.
In your opinion, what part of what he said was intimidating? And with what intent to influence? He already canned her ass.
That would be a first hand statement of what Trump was saying about all this.
"I heard the president say X".
There goes the "muh hearsay" defense. Stupid Qhris.
What did she do to get recalled, Darrin?
Cool. Let's hear him say it publicly under oath and go against 2 people who overheard the same conversation.
What was the aid dependent on then?
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
