Oh come on. There is an anonymous WB sure who is now 100% irrelavant, but NOW there are witnesses who can and will give first-hand evidence which explains the background to the call...and the transcript of it. There is also the time-line of what preceded the release of the Aid Trump suspended.
What would you like to learn from him? Anything besides trying to figure out if he is biased or committed any crimes, or if anyone else committed a crime in revealing their concerns to him?
Said he is what? Entitled to due process? That's not a ruling that has been issued by the Supreme Court to my knowledge. And trump being impeached does not disenfranchise those voters. Hell, even if he is removed, those 60 million still get their choice of VP to become President.
Those people have a much more justifiable reason for their beliefs instead of the people who continue to listen to a trump statement not made under oath.
The supreme court has ruled that congressional witnesses have to be accorded the same due process as a criminal witness. They haven't explicitly ruled on impeachment hearings, for one they never had to since until now all previous impeachment inquiries followed that rule.
Congress is attempting to bring a malefactor to justice. The Republicans are attempting to demonstrate that crime pays
He would indirectly. That anonymous informant just has to provide leads to other witnesses which the police can interview as credible sources for the purposes of an indictment. Once those credible sources have been interviewed and provided sufficient evidence for probable cause, the anonymous source is totally expendable. Your problem isn't this anonymous source. He's yesterday's news. it's the other witnesses that have corroborated pieces of this story including Donny and Rudy, and a host of active players in this melodrama.
Same reason my 17 year old has to be told to clean the refrigerator. They just don't want to hear it.
No 17 year old child or grandchild of mine knew/knows anything about a fridge except when they wanted/want something out of it.
First, i think if you take a critical eye towards the comparison, you will see the Due Process Rights being afforded witnesses, the GOP, and Trump in this impeachment proceeding are the same, or better, than previous impeachment proceedings. The biggest difference I have seen is that previous impeachment proceedings afforded the minority party a veto right against the witnesses called by the majority. Second, I strongly suggest that you should re-read the ruling that you believe affords the same due process rights and I believe you will see that the ruling is that "Due Process applies to Congressional proceedings," not that the Due Process rights must be the same as those afforded the ones in a criminal proceeding.
First the Trumpsters complain that the whistleblower was reporting hearsay, so his evidence should be discounted. Then, when the people with actual first-hand knowledge confirm everything the whistleblower said, his evidence suddenly becomes important? Why? Seriously, how would cross-examining him help Trump's defence? The only reason I can see is to intimidate other whistleblowers from ever coming forward.
So long as it is based on the rational based perception of the witness, then yes it is and yes it would be permitted in a court of law. When you reference opinion, I believe you are referencing what is pretty much the only subjective based determination left in this case, i.e. whether trump intended for a quid pro quo to be presented and whether he intended to try and receive a personal political benefit. We get witnesses to testify as to the motive of the defendant all the time and we let jurors make those evaluations for themselves even in cases where the Defendant has remained silent or where the Defendant has loudly proclaimed that his motive was clean.
Anytime a group of individuals get together and conspire to overthrow a duly elected president of the United States, I think everything should be brought to light. Even those on the left have to agree this has been going on literally since the day Trump won the election. The list of different attempts to remove him is long and has roots that need to be exposed.
Agree the Democrats are trying to make opinions a crime. Let's review the facts shall we: Funds withheld originally and documented that the withholding was due to other countries not helping and corruption. Ukraine allowed to buy missiles. Trump says to the only ones who actually talk to him about it, that there is to be no quid pro quos period. Ukraine doesn't know funds are withheld and the conversation with the Presidents happened which Trump asked for favor not tied to anything. Funds released Ukraine Pres visited white house and tells us all he didn't know the funds were originally withheld and no pressure from whitehouse. Those are the facts. The rest is the dems trotting people out that all started with a meeting with Schiff and we hear their opinions that there was a quid pro quo. Not one of them talked to Trump but they thought it so it must be true. The one's that did talk to Trump about it were told by Trump no quid pro quo. The money trail was followed and if fact Trump forgot to tell Ukraine the money was held up unless Biden was investigated and in fact was released without the investigation, which doesn't support the quid pro quo either. These are facts the rest is feelings, good luck with impeachment.
As I have stated in umpteen other posts, having the same opinion of somebody does not corroborate that somebody. A person testifying to the same opinion as the hearsay of another would not get within a million miles of a witness stand in a court of law.
That is just flat out wrong. In the current hearings, different from the others, the president cannot be represented, the Republicans cannot call their own witnesses without Schiff's approval, the witnesses can be (and have been) instructed by Schiff to not answer Republican questions, the Republicans are not allowed to talk about the hearings (which might to some degree go away with the public hearings), etc. Of course the biggest difference is all the other impeachment hearings already had at least half-way reasonable impeachable offenses to start with. Which other Due Processes do you think the supreme court had in mind????
But there is a sense of due process in our country and in our government don't you agree? And now we hear Schiff is not going to allow any of the Republican witnesess. He's already cut out any White House presence or ability to question witnesses. It's a political stunt a sham his using this most important function of the Congress to try and influence the election. The more partisan he makes it the more it will hurt the Democrats.
News this morning is Schiff is not allowing any of the Republican witnesses. Perhaps Republicans should boycott the whole matter and take it to the People.
You have the 2020 election campaign year to "bring everything to light." This impeachment inquiry is about Trump's behavior and whether that behavior is impeachable.
That's the idea, to ensure Democrats are confident in whatever it is they are trying to conflare. Hillary will win 2020 election with 98.1% to Trump's 2.5% or similar garbage
If his evidence is discounted it certainly should not be used to trigger impeachment hearings. Only one of the witnesses had first hand knowledge, and, as I have now said for the umpteenth +1 time, having a similar opinion cannot "confirm" hearsay evidence. There are a number of things that could help. One thing that comes to mind is the extent of coaching from Schiff or his staff the whistle blower got in formulating his complaint. Another is how did he happen to get a lawyer who started a coup attempt in 2017. Et al.
