trump impeachment watch thread

[vy65]

I don’t need to prove house GOP’s witnesses mattered as I said earlier that ship has already sailed.

It’s not a standard criminal trial. The house set the rules for their impeachment proceedings and the senate sets the rules for the impeachment trial. Elections have consequences

So then due process wouldn’t apply and dear leader and all the other republican re pundits were wrong on that talking point. Congratulations on finally seeing the light.

[vy65]

I don’t need to prove house GOP’s witnesses mattered as I said earlier that ship has already sailed.

It’s not a standard criminal trial. The house set the rules for their impeachment proceedings and the senate sets the rules for the impeachment trial. Elections have consequences

Trial is before senate. The rules of evidence govern admissibility at trial. You absolutely need to prove the relevance of the GOP witnesses testimony

[pgardn]

I don’t need to prove house GOP’s witnesses mattered as I said earlier that ship has already sailed.

It’s not a standard criminal trial. The house set the rules for their impeachment proceedings and the senate sets the rules for the impeachment trial. Elections have consequences

yes they do
Trump is the third president ever to be impeached
all these senators from the red team are going to have to explain their stance in the future and this history is not gonna be nice to them

unless we end up becoming an authoritarian government after this and the Congress becomes the duma and all the judges are corrupt
which seems what the red team is driving for

[Winehole23]

If more damning information about DJT comes out before the election, Senators might pay for their purblind haste to acquit. Trump is already the least popular modern President, and he won by a whisker last time. He doesn't have much wiggle room on the downside.

[TSA]

So then due process wouldn’t apply and dear leader and all the other republican re pundits were wrong on that talking point. Congratulations on finally seeing the light.

finally?

[TSA]

Trial is before senate. The rules of evidence govern admissibility at trial. You absolutely need to prove the relevance of the GOP witnesses testimony

House already denied the GOP witnesses, I don’t need to prove their relevance, the ship has sailed.

[TSA]

Can you name a single trial where the proponent of the witnesses testimony didn’t have to first establish the testimony’s relevance? Do you know why why rules of evidence like 402 exist? This is so basic and fundamental that there’s no point in discussing this with you if you think things like “irrelevant testimony is admissible evidence.

You saying they’re irrelevant over and doesn’t make it true.

https://republicans-intelligence.hou...ss_request.pdf

[vy65]

finally?

Yes finally.

Trump tried pushing an incorrect and inflammatory theory about due process - one that you disagree with - to discredit the impeachment process. I’m guessing you also finally now believe he should at least be guilty of the obstruction of justice impeachment article?

[Winehole23]

GOP may be underestimating the downside of giving evidence and witnesses the bum's rush:

[vy65]

House already denied the GOP witnesses, I don’t need to prove their relevance, the ship has sailed.

Didn’t the house invite Trump to present his case?

Is the trial before the senate or the house?

Do you know when witnesses are presented to the jury?

[vy65]

You saying they’re irrelevant over and doesn’t make it true.

https://republicans-intelligence.hou...ss_request.pdf

Sure it does, and it’s the proponents burden to establish admissibility. A nunes letter doesn’t cut it. Let’s take an example. Why’s the golden shower PI guy relevant?

[vy65]

House already denied the GOP witnesses, I don’t need to prove their relevance, the ship has sailed.

If you believe this there’s really no point in discussing this with you.

[vy65]

Look, TSA. It’s either one of the following.

Either the senate proceeding is a trial, where witnesses are supposed to testify, and evidentiary concepts like relevance apply.

Or

It’s a political proceeding and not a trial where those concepts wouldn’t apply. That would mean the president lied to the American people and attempted to discredit the entire impeachment process — a much more serious issue.

Which is it?

[TSA]

Sure it does, and it’s the proponents burden to establish admissibility. A nunes letter doesn’t cut it. Let’s take an example. Why’s the golden shower PI guy relevant?

House Res 660 Supra note 2 calls for exactly what Nunes sent...detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness.

Golden shower PI guy isn’t even on the list of requests from Nunes what the are you talking about

[Winehole23]

There's going to be another Wohl/Burkman presser.

GAME OVER

[TSA]

Yes finally.

Trump tried pushing an incorrect and inflammatory theory about due process - one that you disagree with - to discredit the impeachment process. I’m guessing you also finally now believe he should at least be guilty of the obstruction of justice impeachment article?

There is no obstruction of justice impeachment article what the are you talking about

[vy65]

House Res 660 Supra note 2 calls for exactly what Nunes sent...detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness.

Golden shower PI guy isn’t even on the list of requests from Nunes what the are you talking about

Fusion GPS, the 2016 election, Trumps golden shower party, etc are irrelevant to the two articles of impeachment for a number of reasons, the main being events that occurred in 2016 (alleged Ukrainian interference) are not probative of events that occurred three years later. Nunes is a hack pushing talking points, not relevant evidence

[vy65]

There is no obstruction of justice impeachment article what the are you talking about

What is the obstruction of congress article about TSA?

[spurraider21]

Can you name a single trial where the proponent of the witnesses testimony didn’t have to first establish the testimony’s relevance? Do you know why why rules of evidence like 402 exist? This is so basic and fundamental that there’s no point in discussing this with you if you think things like “irrelevant testimony is admissible evidence.

401 tbh

[TSA]

Look, TSA. It’s either one of the following.

Either the senate proceeding is a trial, where witnesses are supposed to testify, and evidentiary concepts like relevance apply.

Or

It’s a political proceeding and not a trial where those concepts wouldn’t apply. That would mean the president lied to the American people and attempted to discredit the entire impeachment process — a much more serious issue.

Which is it?

It’s not an either/or...it’s a political proceeding that has rules set by whichever party holds the senate.

[vy65]

401 tbh

401 defines relevance, 402 is what makes it admissible and excludes irrelevant evidence.

[vy65]

It’s not an either/or...it’s a political proceeding that has rules set by whichever party holds the senate.

Does due process apply, yes or no?

[TSA]

Fusion GPS, the 2016 election, Trumps golden shower party, etc are irrelevant to the two articles of impeachment for a number of reasons, the main being events that occurred in 2016 (alleged Ukrainian interference) are not probative of events that occurred three years later. Nunes is a hack pushing talking points, not relevant evidence

So what did you bring up Steele when he wasn’t even mentioned by Nunes as a witness?

[vy65]

So what did you bring up Steele when he wasn’t even mentioned by Nunes as a witness?

Why did Nunes mention it in his letter?

Is this question your argument why Ohr’s testimony is relevant?

[spurraider21]

those witnesses aren't relevant just beacuse nunes says they are in a letter.

the biden's could be corrupt to their core, as could Ukrainian prosecutors and all those people on the list. that doesnt make them relevant to the question of whether or not trump abused his power in withholding aid unless the ukrainian government agreed to publicly announce an investigation into biden. again, even if biden was guilty as sin, that doesnt change the dynamic one bit. thats why they arent relevant witnesses.

relevant witnesses would be those privy to the president's decision making, the people on the call, the people who discussed the call, etc. the whistleblower in his own report said he only heard about what happened through other people, so he has no first-hand knowledge of any of this, so his testimony isnt going to be helpful. same with schiff. he has no first-hand knowledge of the president's conversations or decision making. he's not a relevant witness.

whether the bidens/burisma are actually corrupt, whether the ukrainian government officials were actually corrupt, whether schiff and the whisteblower were in contact have no relevance to the claim that trump used the power of his office for the purpose of benefitting himself personally in his efforts to get re-elected. its all a side show.

the cons ution says the chief justice is supposed to preside. in any normal case, is is the judge would determine relevancy of witnesses... so that should be john roberts' call regardless of what cocaine mitch says.