Because it is only hearsay when there is no collaboration. There are countless witnesses. They are going to testify to what they heard. AND NO ONE IS GOING TO OBJECT to it. Even the sleezy Republican'ts cannot find ONE single OBJECTION to the report and what this means. TRUMP COMMITTED MAJOR CRIMES here and TREASON is one of them.
Let's put it this way. Remember Clinton? Bill? Remember the nonsense they threw at him?
Well, TAKE THAT EVIDENCE AND MULITIPLY IT BY 100 and you will get the idea.
No. YOU Will not get the idea. You and your GOP buddies who think you can change the law or ignore the law? Your days are numbered. And we have been VERY patient with the CROOKS who tried to obstruct. Barr and TRUMP and RUDY the RED are going DOWN so low you won't be able to find them. Even YOU have gotta know it's OVER.
This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at September 27, 2019 7:01 AM MDT
Hearsay is trying to testify about something you did not see or hear yourself. You heard someone say it. I would not be allowed to say Bob told me that joe stole my credit from my purse. Even if the police found my credit card in Joe's wallet.
Why is this whistleblower allowed to do that....he/she did not hear the phone call themselves.
A whistleblower is not testifying to anything---all he is doing is calling 911 when he thinks he has just witnessed a crime.
And then, the "police"---in this case the US House of Representatives---begin an inquiry into the facts of the case to see if in fact a crime has been committed and if so, then by whom.
And a crime does not require a witness to prove that a given person was in fact the person who committed the crime. Physical evidence and admissions by the person who is accused of the crime are sufficient proof both that a crime happened and that the person suspected of committing that crime did in fact commit it.
This WHISTLEBLOWER is not someone who used HEARSAY. He didn't say YOU KNOW WHAT I HEARD?
He collaborated his evidence, he is obviously a person of merit who is high up in the intelligence area of the government. The verbiage, the evidence and the collaboration makes it enough evidence MORE THAN ENOUGH evidence to open an impeachment.
This is not the stuff of pseudo science. And? This is NOT a court of LAW. This is a COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION like what you put Bill Clinton through.
Remember? THAT nonsense? Imagine if we tried to impeach Trump over that? That would be the first minute of his campaign. Access Hollywood blows that charge out of the water. Right away. And? TRUMP LIED ABOUT IT WHILE PRESIDENT. WHAT ABOUT THAT ONE?
Are you going to try and say he didn't pay off Stormy? THE COURTS THAT YOU WORSHIP SAY DIFFERENT.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 4
Whispers about impeachment began to circulate even before Trump had taken the oath of office. But two months into Trump’s presidency, those whispers – and the search for any other possible emergency exit – have grown into an open conversation that has moved well beyond the realm of a Democratic party daydream. It has since become an obsession. That is the clearest display of what a sore loser is I have seen in a long time.
“Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”, the Constitution says. Needless to say, there’s debate over what all those terms mean. And I'm sure some unimpeachable offenses will be deemed impeachable offenses along the way. The Democrats number one goal is to impeach President Trump. Their reasons for wanting to impeach Trump, on the surface, seem to be many but what is the "real" reason for wanting to impeach Trump? Because he beat Hillary Clinton in the Presidential election. That's sad.
Are you saying you think calling the head of another country and asking them to investigate Hunter Biden in the hope of gathering dirt for Trump to use against his primary election rival is perfectly fine?
Trump asked for help with the investigation into the origins of the Russian Hoax. (that was the favor he asked) In the coarse of the conversation about their request to have the ambassador replaced and the forced removal of the URK prosecutor came up and that a good one would be appointed soon. Trump said good. People are talking about Biden and his kid being involved. If you could look into that it would be good. It was horrible.
I think we should investigate what happened to the $1.8 B in aid money (of $3B) that disappeared. Hunter''s company was allegedly involved. That is the investigation that Daddy Biden shutdown in 6 hrs. I think we should find out what happened and that we should know it would not happen again before we give them more.
The July 25 phone call had nothing to do with the Russia investigation By that time, Mueller's investigation was over and done. Trump was looking for dirt on Hunter Biden that he figured he could use against Joe Biden.
You may want to read the transcript of the call. The "do us a favor" was about the Russian Hoax not the Bidens. Help Barr with the investigation of how that all started. Crowdstrike, their server is said to be in Urk..... and how it all ended with a poor performance my Mueller.
Where did the $1.8B go? How is there no evidence of Biden pressuring them to shutdown an investigation. It is on video Joe bragging about it.
From your link "repeatedly asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate the involvement of Biden’s son, Hunter, with a Ukrainian energy company."
Again read the transcript....if was only mentioned once and Trump did not ask him to investigate. Urk mentioned the PA that was forced out. Trump said people are talking about it. Not will you investigate.
Does is surprise me that the NEW PA in Urk cleared Biden after his stunt? No of course not. The one who was forced out did not say it. Said he had evidence but could not talk about it because that would be illegal (assumption of innocence) He was fired (Shokin) and all the investigation stopped surprise surprise.
And from my quote, once again, you chose to note the part where "Ukraine’s current top prosecutor as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or his father."
Maybe, but he was the one who said he would withhold the billion dollars if they man wasn't fired. If Trump has said something like that on video, the left would go scorched Earth.
Biden would have withheld the funds because of corruption, not because the Unkranian refused to dig up dirt on a political enemy of Biden's. Perhaps you don't see the difference and if that's the case, I feel bad for you.
Let's say, for argument's sake, you're right. You can't equate Biden holding up funds to protect his kid from investigation with Trump withholding funds to get dirt on a political opponent. You're trying to compare apples and oranges and it doesn't work.
Take all the stuff I say to My 2 and read it. I don't have time for repeats of the same denials.
TRUMP has all the qualities of every crook that has ever even come near to the Office of President. OKAY????
That means anyone who went to jail for perjury, treason, lies, racism, all of it. Stealing our money set for Ukraine's millitary? He thinks we are his DADDY covering for his stealing.
Daddy Trump would pay and pay and pay to keep Donnie safe and out of jail. Now? Daddy's dead and Uncle Sam is not Trump's relative he can steal from.
This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at October 31, 2019 7:34 AM MDT
Documents quoting people who are not present in court, and hearsay evidence are inadmissible for lack of a firsthand witness. However, corruption in politics runs deep and because of this corruption, many politicians seem to go out of their way to include and use pretty much any means necessary in their proceedings that no court of law would ever consider using. It seems that facts, evidence, and truth are all but extinct in the political world. Thankfully we still have some politicians with some integrity that helps keep matters on an even keel.
Mr. Bromide 